Liberals and Conservatives have different brain structures

[onan]

But doesn't that also fit with the brain structure study discussed in this thread?

One could say that.

[somatichypermutation]

i would also note that nowhere did anyone say one type of thought was better, just that they were different.  Interesting who read what into these studies, isn't it?

[Yorkshire pud]

i would also note that nowhere did anyone say one type of thought was better, just that they were different.  Interesting who read what into these studies, isn't it?

You may find the response to that, deafening by it's absence... 

[West of the Rockies]

I have known, respected, liked, and loved people who had very different politics than do I.  I think reductionist thinking is causing great damage to our political discourse and nation.  A study like this gives a little red meat to both sides but does not really shed much illumination over why we vote the way we do.  Snarky slogans don't help either:  "I used to be a Democrat.  Then I grew up."  "I used to be a Republican.  Than I got a heart."  Meh....

[Yorkshire pud]

I have known, respected, liked, and loved people who had very different politics than do I.  I think reductionist thinking is causing great damage to our political discourse and nation.  A study like this gives a little red meat to both sides but does not really shed much illumination over why we vote the way we do.  Snarky slogans don't help either:  "I used to be a Democrat.  Then I grew up."  "I used to be a Republican.  Than I got a heart."  Meh....

I came across this quite by chance a few months ago. I thought it was from a new film that had been released as it isn't shown in the UK..I had to know and find out more. So I did. I confess the first time I watched it, I had to tune my ear to the dialogue, but even so, I found it quite moving because of it's innocence and the basic premise to what some like to think the USA is. I understand almost predictably, it hasn't recieved universal approval; maybe it's too complicated for some of the audience, used to having their thinking done for them; or perhaps as the character Will McAvoy says "We didn't identify ourselves by who we voted for at the last election", those same people judge it because of their own political indoctrination?


America is NOT the best Country in The World! - The Newsroom Clip

[West of the Rockies]

Hello, Yorkshire... I have seen that clip before with Jeff Daniels.  I agree that it is innocent.  It also presents some inarguable facts (defense spending, incarceration rates, the world-changing greatness of America's original political documents....).  Again, I find myself wanting to make the point that demonizing "the other side" while seeing our own political views as wholely honorable, honest, intelligent is not terribly helpful.  If I see everyone who disagrees with me as stupid, ignorant, dishonest, wicked, sinful, and foolish, I'm not seeing them clearly.  I don't know what the political discourse is like in the UK.  Here, it's become fairly toxic.  A couple hundred pundits, writers, bloggers, and filmmakers make milliions of dollars every year by stirring that toxic pot.  They prey on their listeners' worst fears and assumptions, tell them what they want to hear.  It is to the ruin of us all.

Dark and cynical?  Maybe.  As Dennis Miller would say, "That's just my opinion, but I may be wrong."

[Pragmier]

A couple hundred pundits, writers, bloggers, and filmmakers make milliions of dollars every year by stirring that toxic pot.  They prey on their listeners' worst fears and assumptions, tell them what they want to hear.

There ya go - civil, honest, intelligent discourse will never win the ratings battle over hysterics and pandering. There are some exceptions in the media, but most people will turn the channel at the first sound of something they disagree with. FWIW I find The Diane Rehm Show to be among the exceptions.

[Yorkshire pud]

I don't know what the political discourse is like in the UK.  Here, it's become fairly toxic.
 

I'll type this as I think of it! The political landscape of the UK has had influential conflict over centuries; feudal battles, civil war and of course wars with invaders. Romans, Norse, Normans, Saxons etc..But even then it isn't that simple. Scotland, Wales and Ireland are part of the British Isles, but they have their Celt and Germanic input too. Britain became the major trading nation in the world, and even in the last century, the sun rose and set on somewhere that Britain controlled (British Empire).. Because of this far reaching hand, the industrial revolution was also spread out. Railways, steam engines, generators, and the almost unbelievably prolific work of Isambard Kingdom Brunel literally changed the world. Ship building and mass produced cannons made our Royal Navy the biggest and most powerful in the world too.

This reach and the reciprocating movement to our shores by the people of the Empire made us have quite a diversity..After WW2, the Empire collapsed. India split to be India and Pakistan, both being independent of the UK, The commonwealth came about, so although these countries are independent, they have a belonging to the mother nation.

Politically, we didn't have an official 'left' leaning party in the UK until just before WW2..Until then it was the Conservatives (mainly rich and aristocratic members of parliament, who bought power but didn't work) and the Liberals..Liberals were led by a man called David Lloyd George, and in many ways were not at all 'liberal'! Look it up on google if you want to know more.

The later 1920's brought with it the depression; the dreadful working conditions, housing, sanitation and literal starvation of poor people prompted the rise of the fight for the right to strike. That was the start of the labour party. It was the move in Britain to give power to the common man; I say man, because there were no plans to make women equal! September the 3rd 1939 changed that. Britain went to war with Germany, and until 1945 we put politics on the back burner, Churchill being a Tory (Formally a liberal), but leading a coalition government.

After the war, Churchill was rewarded by the lads coming home from war voting him out, and voting in Clement Atlee, the leader of the labour party. The national health service was formed..A national and universal means of making the nation healthy, free at the point of use. It was and still is paid for with a levy on earnings called national insurance. Relatively simple and uncomplicated Illnesses and conditions that poor people had died from were now survivable. Childbirth was no longer a case of if the baby would survive, but thriving with better health through it's life 'Cradle to grave' was born.

The war had of course taken it's toll, food rationing wasn't ended until 1954, when meat was the last to escape it.  Politically, it went either way..Conservatives, Labour..pretty much in equal measure.."You will see a state of prosperity such as we have never had in my lifetime; Indeed let us be frank about it - most of our people have never had it so good" was coined by Harold Macmillan because of the massive increase in most peoples standard of living. Music, fashion, available housing, cars, 'Jobs for life' (and if not, you could literally change it the same day) gave the country a mood of anything being possible. Women had control over their reproduction with the pill...it was a time of joy!

BUT...the oil crises in the 70's started the fall from grace.. electricity, coal, transport unions, caught in a three day working week because of the financial crises called strikes. Candle sales rocketed because of power cuts.. Of course in this maelstrom we also got steamrollered into joining the then Common Market..a unified organisation that tore down trade barriers with the rest of Europe.. Eradicating import and export taxes to make a level playing field to do business on...This metamorphosed into the dreadful, corrupt, catastrophically bureaucratic edifice it is now.

Here in the UK, Thatcher came to power in 79, the year I left school...She had decided that she would fight and destroy the unions she blamed for the problems in the early-late 70's.. Then began the dismantling of our manufacturing base. She withdrew state subsidy to our nationalised industries, utilities and transport infrastructure. In the area I live 120 000 people directly or indirectly employed by the local steel industry lost their jobs..Then she took on the coal unions, and thorough her political ideology, many pits were closed and thousends more were unemployed...The railways, gas, electricity companies, water all privatised; the myth perpetrated that it would enable the people to take back through share holding the companies..naturally this was a lie. The financial institutions bought the shares, and are now all owned by foreign companies (ALL of them).. That's free market economics for you! Oh, and the railways (Broken up into separate companies) now take about ten times more in tax payer subsidy than they ever did when they were nationalised, even though they were supposed to 'stand on their own feet'.

After Thatcher was ousted by her own party (because she was seen as a liability) various other Conservative leaders came and went (largely because labour didn't have a credible alternative)..Until 1994..Then a young rising star in the relaunched 'New Labour' came to prominence, a successor after the tragic death of John Smith. Still regarded as one of the most highly respected politicians of any political persuasion..I actually cried at the news. He was a decent, straight forward, honourable man (It could be argued too good to be in politics), and now is laid to rest on Iona; the island of the Kings, off the west coast of Scotland. Same say he was murdered; he was diametrically opposite to Tony Blair who succeeded him and because people were sick of what the Tories had done, voted in as PM in 97...Now was the race to the centre ground of the political spectrum.

We don't like extremes in the UK..we all tend to stay around the centre, and of course the cause and effect is reflected..'The public get what the public want, and the public want what the public get'..as Paul Weller said.

So because this time the Tories were in disarray, and he was making things happen Tony Blair was brought to power a total of three times (In the UK, a term lasts 4 years, but a party leader can be there for ever if so desired).

Blair the lying corrupt war criminal (Sorry, I'm showing my feelings toward him) bowed out of the job and was succeeded by Gordon Brown (another Scot).. And yet more carnage followed..the crash in 2006/8..not helped by politicians..So in 2009 the landscape was complicated by the election not having a party having an overall majority..This led to the Liberal Democrats (who had always wanted proportional representation) having to make a choice of who to get into bed with (They held the balance of power although they came third)..David Cameron or Gordon Brown..And chose 'call me Dave'

This has caused major ructions within both parties as you might imagine. The Tories wishing to extend their right wing direction, but stymied by the LD wanting a more collective stance..

But in spite of what some on here believe..Obama is NOT left wing..Not even close. Cameron is seen as a natural successor to Thatcher, and he is way way 'left' of Obama.

I know it's a ramble..but I thought it needed a broad look.

[Juan]

You might also consider that just because you are farther left doesn't mean Obama isn't left.

[Yorkshire pud]

You might also consider that just because you are farther left doesn't mean Obama isn't left.

If you use the analogy of light wavelength: The UK government is (now) round about orange/yellow, increasingly going into blue in the visible spectrum.. Communism is infra red. Stalin in word was red..In deed he was indigo/violet/ultra violet; as are pretty much all dictators 'left' or 'right'.. Bush is blue/indigo. Obama is about blue..Reagan was yellow/green/blue. Thatcher in the UK was blue/indigo-she was responsible for trebling unemployment, the destruction of entire communities and industrial infrastructure; and furthermore the increase in direct subsidising of private monopolies by the British taxpayer. It could be argued with foundation, that she was directly responsible for what in the future (2007>>) was a much worse economic climate iin the UK, than it needed to be. Blair was an admirer of Thatcher and his policies mirrored hers in some ways, even though he was supposed to be politicaly opposite..But their spin doctors realised it was too much so began the race to the centre ground.

US politics is all about the race to showing how right they are under the fear they'll (wrongly) be percieved as commie/pinko/socialist/liberal treacherous bastards.. Carried along by the largely autocratic television press, the populace buy into what they're told, without actually understanding what a political spectrum actually is and how the facets function.

[Juan]

The other way to consider it would be to think of freedom on one end of the spectrum and totalitarianism on the other.

[size=78%]US politics is all about the race to showing how right they are under the fear they'll (wrongly) be percieved as commie/pinko/socialist/liberal treacherous bastards.. Carried along by the largely autocratic television press, the populace buy into what they're told, without actually understanding what a political spectrum actually is and how the facets function. [/size]

I'm not sure you're right about this anymore.  The news media and government schools (a term I use to avoid the different use of public and private in our countries) have not taught history nor the evils of Communism in long time here.  I do agree that a substantial number of people fail to understand what a political spectrum is - I'm not sure a large number of people have ever understood how the facets function.

[Yorkshire pud]

The other way to consider it would be to think of freedom on one end of the spectrum and totalitarianism on the other.I'm not sure you're right about this anymore.  The news media and government schools (a term I use to avoid the different use of public and private in our countries) have not taught history nor the evils of Communism in long time here.  I do agree that a substantial number of people fail to understand what a political spectrum is - I'm not sure a large number of people have ever understood how the facets function.

The 'evils' of communism? The free destiny and control of the industrial and economic structure by the people for the benefit of the people-in other words, a tiny almost non existent government. The USSR wasn't communist in the true sense..It was a ponderous, antiquated, stupidly bureaucratic, all pervading, dictatorial monster, with a few very very privileged elite reaping the gains whilst the majority suffered terrible poverty and crushed spirit. It's less so now, but instead of the politburo as was, it's now run by the Russian mafia. There's still poverty, but with the fall of the Berlin wall, freedom of movement has meant those people can move to other countries more easily. Neither is communism.

[Sardondi]

The 'evils' of communism? The free destiny and control of the industrial and economic structure by the people for the benefit of the people-in other words, a tiny almost non existent government. The USSR wasn't communist in the true sense..It was a ponderous, antiquated, stupidly bureaucratic, all pervading, dictatorial monster, with a few very very privileged elite reaping the gains whilst the majority suffered terrible poverty and crushed spirit. It's less so now, but instead of the politburo as was, it's now run by the Russian mafia. There's still poverty, but with the fall of the Berlin wall, freedom of movement has meant those people can move to other countries more easily. Neither is communism.

Heh."Real communism hasn't been tried." "Tsarist agents undermined Lenin's real plan." "Trotsky and The Jews (fill in the blank)."

Have I left any out? Adolescent communitarian fantasist excuses that is. But I'd come up with a counter-narrative to reality also if my favorite form of government had as vile and wretched a track record as Communism. The evidence is all around us, in every country it was ever tried: Communist governments can exist no longer than a fish out of water absent compulsion.

But keep up the good fight. And make sure you get in that last word as you always do: they keep score in the Official Internet.

[Yorkshire pud]

Heh."Real communism hasn't been tried." "Tsarist agents undermined Lenin's real plan." "Trotsky and The Jews (fill in the blank)."

Have I left any out? Adolescent communitarian fantasist excuses that is. But I'd come up with a counter-narrative to reality also if my favorite form of government had as vile and wretched a track record as Communism. The evidence is all around us, in every country it was ever tried: Communist governments can exist no longer than a fish out of water absent compulsion.

But keep up the good fight. And make sure you get in that last word as you always do: they keep score in the Official Internet.

What is it with you? Do you think you're the only one on here who has two synapsis to rub together? Communsim has never worked because it isn't communism; it's always been a form of fascism. Incidentally Churchill was a liberal..

Funny how you accuse me of getting the last word, but you don't level that at anyone else; presumably because they say nice things about you? Your mate HAL over his wrist slapping yet? 

[onan]

Not that I care to continue this argument but an observation. Many things didn't work and were even considered against the will of god. Trains... at one time the common thought was going faster than a horse could run could be fatal to humans. If men were supposed to fly they would have wings. The concept that communism is evil, is irrational. No idea is in and of itself capable of any harm. How a concept is implemented however...
What a shame, that thinking all men should share in a communal nature is so readily relegated to the base nature of man. Someone posted a picture of soylent green as what should happen to those not meeting some arbitrary level of competence/productivity. I would propose that stance is as vile as those that cheat.

[PB the Deplorable]

... US politics is all about the race to showing how right they are under the fear they'll (wrongly) be percieved as commie/pinko/socialist/liberal treacherous bastards.. Carried along by the largely autocratic television press, the populace buy into what they're told, without actually understanding what a political spectrum actually is and how the facets function.

Reading your posts, I think you have developed a certain mis-understanding of the US in at least a couple of areas.  The Media here in the US, and certainly the Left, have insisted on a couple of things that just are not true.

1)  That US politicians are under the thumb of the 'Christians' and are always on the verge of installing a Christian theocracy.  The truth is the Evangelical Christians tend to be a part of the Conservative wing of the R party, and the Conservatives as a whole are a minority in the party and don't set policy.  Additionally, many of the minority groups - Black and Hispanic - as well as most Catholics are in the D party, but are also uninfluential as far as implementing policy.

Politicians merely pay lip service to these groups during campaigns, then ignore tem entirely.  I assume you hear the lip service and think it's more than what it really is

2)  That US politicians and US policy is about running to the right - the point you make above.  Again, this is more lip service than reality.  During campaigns, nearly all R's claim to be 'Conservative', and the D's claim to be 'fiscal' Conservatives.  They also talk a lot about this when a vote on a major bill is coming up - but then vote the opposite of what a Conservative would do.  But a country running massive deficits - $1.5 Trillion a year, huge tax rates (although maybe not  compared to some European countries), redundent social programs growing like topsy, sending the military all over the world and running 2 major wars and who even knows have many smaller ones - none of this is 'Conservative' or 'right-wing'.

I realize it is dificult to have a good understanding on what is really happening some place far away, but listening to what the Left claim they are up against, and listening to what Big Media in our country has to say is not the path to the truth.

[West of the Rockies]

"The concept that communism is evil, is irrational. No idea is in and of itself capable of any harm." -- Onan

Ah, then I have A Modest Proposal for you, Onan.... 

Actually though, I quite agree with your observations -- I just wanted to insert the Swift reference.  But your point is well made, and it refers to one of my earlier points (which was not all that original), which is that each side tends to utterly demonize the other.  Heaven forbid we work together to accomplish something.  To a small segment of our body politic, however, "let's work together" goes into the ears but what is heard is "Let's be socialist" or maybe "You didn't build that."  To another small segment of our body politic, the words, "Earn what you want through hard work" becomes "You're worthless, lazy and should be incarcerated." 

Thankfully, I still believe there are enough people who can recognize the flaws "on their side" and the wisdom of "the other side" just enough that we can keep this political experiment going for another 100 years or so.

Thank you, Yorkshire, for the quick and informative history on English politics.  Thatcher is still revered by some, I know.  My neighbor (I believe he's from Manchester) practically genuflects upon uttering her name.  She is your nation's Saint Ronnie (Reagan) it would seem.  (Which is NOT to say that Reagan did not help accomplish some very good things, but his reputation outshines -- in my opinion -- his accomplishments.  We will almost certainly see the same thing happen with Obama, I suspect.  To some on the left, he will became a beacon of greatness.

[West of the Rockies]

Reading your posts, I think you have developed a certain mis-understanding of the US in at least a couple of areas.  The Media here in the US, and certainly the Left, have insisted on a couple of things that just are not true.

1)  That US politicians are under the thumb of the 'Christians' and are always on the verge of installing a Christian theocracy.  The truth is the Evangelical Christians tend to be a part of the Conservative wing of the R party, and the Conservatives as a whole are a minority in the party and don't set policy.  Additionally, many of the minority groups - Black and Hispanic - as well as most Catholics are in the D party, but are also uninfluential as far as implementing policy.

Politicians merely pay lip service to these groups during campaigns, then ignore tem entirely.  I assume you hear the lip service and think it's more than what it really is

2)  That US politicians and US policy is about running to the right - the point you make above.  Again, this is more lip service than reality.  During campaigns, nearly all R's claim to be 'Conservative', and the D's claim to be 'fiscal' Conservatives.  They also talk a lot about this when a vote on a major bill is coming up - but then vote the opposite of what a Conservative would do.  But a country running massive deficits - $1.5 Trillion a year, huge tax rates (although maybe not  compared to some European countries), redundent social programs growing like topsy, sending the military all over the world and running 2 major wars and who even knows have many smaller ones - none of this is 'Conservative' or 'right-wing'.

I realize it is dificult to have a good understanding on what is really happening some place far away, but listening to what the Left claim they are up against, and listening to what Big Media in our country has to say is not the path to the truth.

Hi, Paperboy... I think you make some solid points, but I don't agree with you (or at least with what I think you're inferring) that the U.S. media is especially the lapdog of liberals.  Think about AM radio.  Aren't the vast majority of voices heard there pretty conservative?  Dennis Miller, Rush, Hannity, Beck, Savage, et al.  Yup, there's MSNBC, but there's also FOX News (with its larger audience).  CBS is owned by the corporate giant Westinghouse.  NBC is jointly owned by Comcast and General Electric; I'm pretty sure they're very focused on bottom-line profits.  Most newspapers and TV and radio stations are corporate-owned.  Sure, there's NPR and PBS, but if you ever surf over to the comments made in the various discussion forums of both broadcasters, you'll find that they are regarded as either rightwing or leftwing (depending on the filters of the various listeners).  I think they lean a little -- but not a lot -- to the left.

You could certainly name a list of left-wing writers/editors.; others could present a list of rightwing writers/editors.  The Wall Street Journal (owned by Murdoch) is regarded by many now as leaning politically right (along with the Washington Post and other papers).  The San Francisco Chronicle and Sacramento Bee are certainly more leftwing.

I think the idea that the mainstream media is leftist is one of the big lies in this country.  The lovely Sarah Palin (I mean that) calls the MSM the "Lamestream Media", but that is a snarky bit of reductionist rhetoric.  Once again, we're back to that point:  reducing the other side to a simple set of basic principles.  I have no doubt that I sometimes do that myself.

[PB the Deplorable]

... Communsim has never worked because it isn't communism; it's always been a form of fascism...

I would be quite happy if people, say 10 100 or 1000, got together and formed a company they then all worked at as equals.  And there are a few small business around like that.  But that is not typically how it works.

Usually it's one guy, or maybe several, or sometimes outside investors setting something up, that start something, often put years of time and energy into it until it even becomes profitable, then finally enjoy some profits and a decent living either running it or selling it.  Then the Big Government types come along and want to tax much of that profit away.  Even worse is when the Communists seize power and want to take everything away from everyone (when Obama gets away from the tele-prompter and his mask drops on occasion, you can even hear it:  'spread the wealth around', 'you didn't build that', etc).

Those really are the only two ways we get to true Communism.  Which are you proposing?

If you are proposing seizing everything, it would have to be done through a government armed against it's citizens.  There is a certain history we can look to to see how it's turned out before. 


You say it just wasn't done properly.  That exactly what Khrushchev said about Stalin.  And what Brezhnev said about Khrushchev.  And what Andropov, Chernenko and Gorbechev said about Brezhnev.  And what the people that cam after Mao said about him.  Soon they will be saying that about Castro, if they aren't already.

And when they seize businesses, they done such a great job running them, haven't they?  Completely running the whole country into the ground.  Take a look sometime at pictures of East Berlin and pictures of West Berlin taken around the same time.  That should tell anyone about all they need to know.

Meanwhile the death count in trying to properly implement this fantasy is up to what, 100 million?  Or is it only 85 million, depending on who is counting?   I think the facts are in.  We don't need anymore experiments.  Or people telling us it just wasn't done right.

[PB the Deplorable]

... To a small segment of our body politic, however, "let's work together" goes into the ears but what is heard is "Let's be socialist" or maybe "You didn't build that."...

Actually, what was said was 'You didn't build that'.  What was heard by many (or at least spun) was 'let's work together'.

Now interpreting the 'you didn't build that' line, I assume some part of what he meant truly was 'let's work together'.  But why didn't he just say that - remember this is supposed to be the smartest person in the room, the best thinker and speaker, all that.  So why was 'you didn't build that' what came to mind for him? 

When you include some of the other stuff he's said, the distain he shows for the private sector and 'the millionaires and billionaires' (any family earning $200,000), the 20 years sitting in that Marxist church, he is certainly a man of the Left and DID mean what he said.  He just didn't mean to say it.  Can you imagine a Reagan saying something like that, trashing entrepeneurs, when he meant to say 'let's work together'?  No.

[West of the Rockies]

Hello, Paperboy... personally, I think Obama's words were deliberately misinterpreted.  I took his words to mean, essentially, "Hey, you own a business, but all of the infrastructure that allows that business to function was built collectively by a lot of people.  Without any road to your business, power & water companies, etc., that business wouldn't really be there."  Of course, those actual words "You didn't build that" are what he said.  You hear a host of dark, disrespectful things in those words; I hear something rather different.

But, please know, that I appreciate your civil presentation of your differing opinion!  I'm not trying to be all Pollyanna here, just tryin' to keep things constructive (as were you).

[PB the Deplorable]

Hi, Paperboy... I think you make some solid points, but I don't agree with you (or at least with what I think you're inferring) that the U.S. media is especially the lapdog of liberals.  Think about AM radio.  Aren't the vast majority of voices heard there pretty conservative?  Dennis Miller, Rush, Hannity, Beck, Savage, et al.  Yup, there's MSNBC, but there's also FOX News (with its larger audience).  CBS is owned by the corporate giant Westinghouse.  NBC is jointly owned by Comcast and General Electric; I'm pretty sure they're very focused on bottom-line profits.  Most newspapers and TV and radio stations are corporate-owned.  Sure, there's NPR and PBS, but if you ever surf over to the comments made in the various discussion forums of both broadcasters, you'll find that they are regarded as either rightwing or leftwing (depending on the filters of the various listeners).  I think they lean a little -- but not a lot -- to the left.

You could certainly name a list of left-wing writers/editors.; others could present a list of rightwing writers/editors.  The Wall Street Journal (owned by Murdoch) is regarded by many now as leaning politically right (along with the Washington Post and other papers).  The San Francisco Chronicle and Sacramento Bee are certainly more leftwing.

I think the idea that the mainstream media is leftist is one of the big lies in this country.  The lovely Sarah Palin (I mean that) calls the MSM the "Lamestream Media", but that is a snarky bit of reductionist rhetoric.  Once again, we're back to that point:  reducing the other side to a simple set of basic principles.  I have no doubt that I sometimes do that myself.

Yes, the Conservatives have talk radio.  That is dwarfed by the main stream media.  A tiny percentage of the country listens to, say, Rush Limbaugh.  There is also Fox which is less one sided and more even (apparently, I've never watched it), and the internet with all sides presented if one looks.

The Big Media outlets are mostly owned by big conglomerates.  Maybe certain exec's are 'Conservatives', but as a whole Big Business and the Fortune 500 aren't.  They lobby and finance the campaigns of both sides, more goes to the candidates they think will win.  They are mostly just buying access.  It seems to me most CEOs are Democrats - I'm forever hearing about some D or Lib cause they are supporting.  I would argue that the largest companies love high taxes and lots of regulations because they have te resources to aviod them, while the taxes and regs stiffle any competition coming along.

The Fortune 500 are more Globalist than anything else.  So is the National Democrat Party.  So is the leadership and majority of the National Republican Party.   Quick - what side of the following is the MSM on:  abortion, death penalty, gun ownership, higher or lower taxes, bigger or smaller government?  When the thugs like Occupy go on a vandalism rampage, how is it reported  - as favorably as possible, or as harshly as possible?  Obviously the MSM are Libs.  Clearly.

One way to tell is to read a few newspapers and watch some TV news for a certain time.  And also listen to talk radio.  The thing about Rush and the rest is that the stuff they present that is completely missing from the Mainstream Media. Just completely ignored.  So the talk radio hosts play clips or read comments made by politicians, then comment on them.  Of course it's with a Conservative slant, but in my experience, it's rarely not taken out of context, although sometimes it is (just like the MSM).  It is often comments made to specific audiences that the politician was confident the Main Stream reporters will ignore and bury.  Or it's coments made in committee or in reference to policy or legislation that the MSM again have ignored and tried to bury.

It is extremely clear to me - reading the paper, looking at MSM websites, then listening to bits of talk radio here and there when I can or visiting 'right wing' websites and finding otherwise buried information -  that the MSM is actively engaged in a very one sided campaign.  They are Liberal and they are Globalist.  They are not 'putting it all out there' and letting us 'decide'.

[morphiaflow]

All of the major media companies are owned by the same entities, including Fox--which also is partly owned by certain Middle Eastern companies.

It's ALL a shell game, folks. Don't buy ANY of it.

[West of the Rockies]

All of the major media companies are owned by the same entities, including Fox--which also is partly owned by certain Middle Eastern companies.

It's ALL a shell game, folks. Don't buy ANY of it.

Hi, Morphiaflow ~ I've enjoyed reading your posts for some time now.  I agree that the majority of the media is owned by big conglomerates AND that it's a shell game.  Remember Don Henley singing about "Dirty Laundry" (the TV news business) back in the 80's? 

I see corporate media as being motivated by profit -- profit is what American business is about to the greatest degree, yes?  I would not call profit an especially "liberal" goal.  Paperboy and I clearly disagree as to the nature of big media.

Cheers!

[Juan]

I think the idea that the mainstream media is leftist is one of the big lies in this country.

I disagree.  I spent 25-years in newsrooms, newspapers and television facilities.  The overwhelming political orientation of the people who actually chose, write and present the news is somewhat left of the U.S. center. Think Bill Clinton, not Bernadine Dohrn.   The people are for the most part big government oriented.  I was also surprised to find that people in newsrooms are the very middle of middle class.  You never meet anyone raised poor or rich.  I suspect that the government orientation comes from two sources - they are of the same class of people as the people who work government jobs, and early in their careers, they are assigned a lot of local stories that involve interaction with local government officials.

[Yorkshire pud]

I disagree.  I spent 25-years in newsrooms, newspapers and television facilities.  The overwhelming political orientation of the people who actually chose, write and present the news is somewhat left of the U.S. center. Think Bill Clinton, not Bernadine Dohrn.   The people are for the most part big government oriented.  I was also surprised to find that people in newsrooms are the very middle of middle class.  You never meet anyone raised poor or rich.  I suspect that the government orientation comes from two sources - they are of the same class of people as the people who work government jobs, and early in their careers, they are assigned a lot of local stories that involve interaction with local government officials.

I don't see class as being wealth related, it's a state of mind. Alan Sugar is a very wealthy man in the UK, but he certainly isn't upper class. Serious journalists usually have a dead centre political stance (neutrality); or at least aspire to one! Sure there are those either side, but most resort to the mean.. They may be middle class, but their parents may be across the board..Kids don't always follow their parents' leanings and therefore someone who's vocation is to report and inform the public of the world around them, will (ideally) do it in an unbiased, articulate and interesting way.

Of course idealism can be and often is overtaken when they join the big bucks outlets; who demand compliance to the proprieters political stance..I don't know what the indiginous US news outlets are, but in the UK we have Lord Rothermere owning the Daily Mail, Murdoch owns the Times, the Sun, and Sky TV.. The Daily Star is a tat tabloid and it's right wing companion the Daily Express is owned by Richard Desmond, a disgusting man. The Telegraph is owned by the reclusive Barclay twins, they live on a remote island and use their considerable wealth to bully the islanders on the next island. None are known to be left wing leaning in any way.

[Eddie Coyle]

Remember Don Henley singing about "Dirty Laundry" (the TV news business) back in the 80's? 

            It's a good song, humorous and on target. But Henley was probably motivated by the coverage of events at his home on Nov 21, 1980(coke, ludes, nude underage girls, etc,) than some sudden urge to shine a light on media malfeasance.

       

[West of the Rockies]

"But Henley was probably motivated by the coverage of events at his home on Nov 21, 1980(coke, ludes, nude underage girls, etc,)...." 

You say that like it's a bad thing, Eddie!   

(Disclaimer -- goin' for humor here... hope it comes through on cyberspace.  As Mr. Mackey would say, "Drugs are bad....")  You know, another song that I think makes fun of a more-than-worthy segment of our population is Pink's "Stupid Girls".  So sick of Paris Hilton types and whoever that 16-year-old was who married the X-Files dude.  (I know that much attention was given to that topic in a previous thread.)

[Eddie Coyle]

"But Henley was probably motivated by the coverage of events at his home on Nov 21, 1980(coke, ludes, nude underage girls, etc,)...." 

You say that like it's a bad thing, Eddie!   

(Disclaimer -- goin' for humor here... hope it comes through on cyberspace.  As Mr. Mackey would say, "Drugs are bad....")  You know, another song that I think makes fun of a more-than-worthy segment of our population is Pink's "Stupid Girls".  So sick of Paris Hilton types and whoever that 16-year-old was who married the X-Files dude.  (I know that much attention was given to that topic in a previous thread.)

        As someone whose own sarcasm often falls flat, I think using the disclaimer is vital. Never underestimate the "outrage" possibilities.
       And believe me, if I were to list the good things about Don Henley, that party at his house in 1980 would probably be at the top. (not sarcasm)

[Sardondi]

            It's a good song, humorous and on target. But Henley was probably motivated by the coverage of events at his home on Nov 21, 1980(coke, ludes, nude underage girls, etc,) than some sudden urge to shine a light on media malfeasance.     

"Whaddaya mean 13 is too young? Fascists! I'm gonna write about your dirty laundry, so there!"