|
"The growth of big news organizations means there is less competition and less diversity of news sources today compared to a few years ago."
|
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
>
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Total # of Responses: 182 - 9/28/03 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
66% |
|
13% |
|
3% |
|
13% |
|
7% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have received feedback on this issue from people all across America. Review the graph to the left for a quick snapshot of the responses received to date, or read the responses below.
|
|
Brett, NE
|
|
... I do not rely on the radio
... 
September 16,2003
|
More and more these days I find myself not listening to the Radio due to the lack of creativity of each station. In fact, one morning on the way to work, I won a contest with a station. When they asked 'Who makes you a winner' I honestly could not recall which station I was listening to as so many of them sound the same. Except for NPR, I do not rely on the radio for new coverage.
|
|
David, FL
|
|
|
... burns the media
...
September 16,2003
|
How can anyone make the case that the media is less diverse than 30 years ago. Thirty years ago there was no Fox News, no talk radio and all three news networks were, as President Reagan said of the San Francisco Democrats, so far to the left they left America. That remains the case with the three brodadcast networks as well as PBS and that fact extends to their entertainment programming where they take all the opportunities they can to whack President Bush and the Republican Party. It really burns the media establishment that there is now an alternative to them and that more alternatives will grow over the coming years. No longer will they be able to hold an audience for what amounts to the New York Times of the air and, as Democrat Party contributor Martha Stewart puts it, THAT'S A GOOD THING!
|
|
Fred, IL
|
|
|
... the issue is moot
...
September 16,2003
|
Agree. However, from the perspective of a black, the issue is moot, because all the major actors who control the "media" are white and anti black.
|
|
Dorothea S, NY
|
|
|
... presure on the media
...
September 16,2003
|
My feelings the present goverment is putting presure on the media.It is a one hand washes the other program,and the hell with viewers.But the viewers just don't turn the box off!The have decided to dumb down,which is why we have the news reporting and programs we have.Bush&co. know this.The power is in everyones hands,but they do not exercises it.I am thankful for PBS.
|
|
Lynn, IN
|
|
|
... Fox is more balanced
...
September 16,2003
|
Since Fox new channel has appeared, it is more balanced. CBS, NBC, and ABC along with PBS is extremely liberal. At least Fox shows both sides. I watched a PBS tape about counter terrorism where it gave Bill Clinton credit by name for starting counter terrorism, (but doing very little about it), however it stated generically how after Sept 11th the government had significantly stepped up the efforts. There was at least 50 examples of this liberal projectionism in the PBS tape.
Lynn
|
|
Dado, SC
|
|
|
...
...
September 16,2003
|
I was glad to see the Dixie Chicks get "busted" when Natalie misspoke. After all, who cares about her 1st Amendment right when old 'Earl' ("Goodbye, Earl") never got his right to a trial
among his peers. They just killed him. Where was the outcry for the message that song sent?
|
|
Dan, NJ
|
|
|
...
...
September 16,2003
|
|
|
Steven, OK
|
|
|
...
...
September 16,2003
|
Less competition among big news organizations breeds bias reporting by eliminating negative news as related to their parent company and subsidiaries. Unfortunately, this can and tends to include news reported as it best relates to any agenda of the companies as well. Thank the Heavens for PBS!
|
|
Lenny, PA
|
|
|
... diversity greater because two boxers in the ring
...
September 16,2003
|
"A few years ago" is too ambiguous. The liberal bias (defined as leaning toward socialistic, aetheistic, one world govt, pacifistic and anti-semitic) has been all too evident on the three TV networks "for years." That sight and sound monolopy was challenged effectively by Linbaugh, an anti-liberal whose beliefs are pro-American in the traditional sense of the word. He caught the attention of the so-called "fly-over zone" that liberals make fun of and is supported by country music, for example. He hit a nerve by giving a voice to many pent up objectors who could speak their mind rather than just throw a shoe at the TV when being told they are obsolete and out of touch. Liberals don't want to hear it because they are too busy re-engineering the world. Fox News merely picked up on the "market value " of the existing tension to give a TV voice/representation to traditional, God-fearing Americans.
It is just the release of a suppressed, pro-American, pro-moral energy that Clintonites disdain. Your piece tonight is slanted to discourage conservative representation who fought hard to get back in the ring. Now you want the referee (govt)to disqualify conservatives because they look like they might carry the fight and defeat your liberal agenda.
Bottom line, the diversity is far greater today because there are now two boxers in the ring.
Just like the ACLU, you only cry censorship when the issue hurts your cause. You are anything but fair and balanced and now you have been exposed by a straighter plumb line. It is about time - hopefully before America is swallowed up by your UN, one world false utopia.
NPR and PBS is one of the biggest offenders (pretending objectivity) and that is why I won't "support" PBS beyond my tax dollars - and hate the thought of that.
|
|
,
|
|
|
...
...
September 16,2003
|
There is more competition because of cable and the Internet. More voices are heard through these outlets.
|
|
|
|
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
>
|
