Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Joke sports

2012-08-25T17:03:30Z

BrianRobertson: don't forget really lame Winter Olympics sports

'''Joke sports''' are games that some people consider to be poor substitutes for athletic endeavors that bring out the best in human achievement with a underlying purpose to the event. The inclusion of many joke sports in the [[2012 Summer Olympics]] detracts from the serious events.

The [[lamestream media]] publicize joke sport winners more than world records set in real sports, which distorts the legitimacy of the [[Olympics]]. Also, the format used for at least one of the joke sports below (badminton) resulted in an expulsion of several teams from the 2012 Summer Olympics which caused embarrassment to the entire Olympics.

Examples of possible joke sports include:

*Aerial skiing
*[[Badminton]]
*Beach volleyball
*BMX cycling
*[[Dressage]]
*Rhythmic [[gymnastics]]
*Mogul skiing
*Olympic [[soccer]]<ref>The Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) imposes rules on players regarding the Olympic Games over the age of participants. This has the effect of prohibiting the best (usually professional) players in the world from competing. The age limit is currently 23 and under. FIFA is trying to lower it to 21 and under; however, the International Olympic Committee is not planning to comply with proposed rules.</ref>
*Halfpipe Snowboarding
*Synchronized [[swimming]]
*[[Swimming]] relays<ref>In running relays, there is a baton that must be artfully passed during the race. No such baton passing exists for the silly swimming relays. Would anyone want a long jump or pole vault "relay"??? However, in swimming relays, strategy is an important component. Placement of the fastest and slowest swimmers in the order is important. Also, precise timing is required as well - the swimmer completing his/her turn must touch the wall before the following swimmer can leave the starting block.</ref>
*[[Table_tennis|Table tennis]]
*[[woman|Women's]] [[boxing]] and [[wrestling]]

Of course, the [[International Olympic Committee]] (IOC) is constantly being lobbied by sports executives who would gain funding and prestige if their sport were included in the Olympic Programme. To respond to these pressure groups without admitting even more sports into the games, the IOC created a "half-way" status of "recognized sports federation." There are currently 68 sport federations recognized by IOC.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.olympic.org/content/the-ioc/governance/international-federations/?tab=mission|title=International federations|publisher=olympic.org|accessdate=Aug 13, 2012}}</ref> Over half of those administer sports in the Summer and Winter Games. But the 31 members of [[Association of IOC Recognised International Sports Federations]] (ARISF)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.arisf.org/members|title=ARISF - Members|publisher=arisf.org|accessdate=Aug 13 2012}}</ref> administer sports that are '''not''' a part of the Olympics. Some of these sports, such as motor sports, are ineligible from ever being a part of the Olympics because the Olympic Charter excludes motor sports.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.olympic.org/Documents/olympic_charter_en.pdf|title=Olympic Charter|accessdate=Aug 13, 2012}}</ref> The ARISF members nonetheless receive funding from the IOC and the national Olympic committees.

== Notes and references ==

<references/>

User talk:BrianRobertson

2007-08-02T23:34:38Z

BrianRobertson: typos

User talk:BrianRobertson

2007-08-02T23:34:05Z

BrianRobertson: These rules are confusing and seem to be repeatedly broken?

Talk:Mainstream media

2007-08-02T21:10:00Z

BrianRobertson: Comment withdrawn, as TerryH had greatly improved the ref's listing. I was wrong.

== Do liberals really use the initials MSM to allege conservative bias in the media? ==

I don't see that. What I ''do'' see is most [[liberal]]s denying that the MSM have any bias at all. If anyone is accusing the MSM of having a conservative bias, it is usually those who are even further to the left--like the Daily Kos.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:18, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, they do. All sides of the political spectrum tend to feel that their views are not properly represented in the 'mainstream media', and given the fact that Fox News' viewing figures are now greater than CNN's, there's no denying - whatever one's views - that there are widely-aired viewpoints that do not concur with a liberal agenda. Most liberals would definitely feel that the 'MSM' is quite far to the right. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 21:24, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Well, I'll tell you what: why don't you go dig up a survey of people who describe themselves as liberal. Seems to me as though you're counting the voices of liberal politicians, editors, anchors, ''et cetera''.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:Alternet, a liberal news site, has some good refs that you can check: [http://alternet.org/workplace/58108/], [http://alternet.org/mediaculture/55915/], [http://alternet.org/story/54339/]

Oh, and one more thing: Don't tell me that Fox News is part of the MSM. It's not, they never pretend to be, and indeed they are proud to say that they are not.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:32, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: According to Nielsen:
:* Fox News has 9 of the 10 most viewed shows on Cable TV News in Dec 2006
:* Fox News mean peaktime viewing figures are triple that of MSNBC, and double that of CNN
:* "In 2006, more than half the people watching cable news were watching Fox News (as they have since 2001)."[http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_cabletv_audience.asp?cat=2&media=6]

:That sounds like the very definition of mainstream to me, no? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 22:12, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

I could've swore that MSM-status was decided by how mainstream something was, not whether or not it claimed to be mainstream... [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:35, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:Why don't you bring me a citation to that effect? What you did in fact swear (and in what forum?), or could or could not have sworn, is of no moment here.
:Never have I seen a definition of "mainstream media" based on numbers of patrons only. Take care: by your definition, Fox would be comfortably mainstream while [[CNN]] stood in danger of losing that status--along with [[The New York Times]], which is losing circulation with every passing year, if not every passing month.
:But you know, or should know, that that's not how it works. Why do you think that [[United States Senate|Senator]] [[Diane Feinstein]] wants to reinstitute the [[Fairness Doctrine]]? It's because she wants to rid the earth of the [[alternative media]] and leave only the [[mainstream media]] as I have defined and listed it in this article.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:: [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Mainstream How's this?] Not entirely sure what's up with the sentence after you asking for a citation, but in any case...
:: I'm shaking in fear of the you thinking the New York Times isn't mainstream. Absolutely terrified.
:: And finally: I wasn't aware that the US' policies affected the entire Earth... [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
:::The dictionary definition you gave, will serve at best for an [[etymology]] of the phrase ''mainstream media'' and not for a corrective to the common use of the term. Names stick, and often for reasons that no lexicographer would predict or can even understand after the fact.
:::Do you deny that ''[[The New York Times]]'' is losing circulation? See what I mean by defining ''mainstream media'' according to present circulation?
:::And as to US policies affecting the entire [[Earth]]--well, don't they? Does not the [[United States]] have the most powerful military of any nation-state now extant? As to "rid the earth": that kind of expression goes back to Roman times. For example:
{{Bible quote|Then they raised their voices and shouted, "Rid the earth of him! He's not fit to live!"|book=Acts|chap=22|verses=22|version=NIV}}--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:39, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives feel that everyone in the television MSM ''except'' Fox News has a liberal bias. That means ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. So the liberals think one station (Fox News) is conservative. That's leaves ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN with a liberal bias. It doesn't make sense for liberals to think that the 'MSM' is quite far to the right. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:That's wrong too - the more liberal or left-leaning, the more they feel that ALL channels and outlets are MSM. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 22:16, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

It's also used in any case where ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN understate something that Liberals feel to be a big issue, or taking the Administration's side just to be safe. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:39, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Should probably clarify- It's not shouted from the rooftops as much by Libs as by Cons. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Actually this idea of liberals using the MSM to mean conservative bias wouldn't be that surprising. They like to use our words and turn them into their liberal meaning. Like "gay" and "rainbow". --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:51, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, how dare they make rainbow mean "... optical and meteorological phenomena that cause a spectrum of light to appear in the sky when the Sun shines onto droplets of moisture in the Earth's atmosphere." Before, it was just "PRETTY THING FROM GOD!" And so it should always be. And that's, that's the way I feel about it! [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Alleged bias of [[Fox News]] ==

I direct this to User Kazumaru, who questions my definition of Mainstream Media.

First, who does, and who does not, constitute Mainstream Media is strictly an historical definition only. It has nothing to do with popularity or share of viewership, audience, readership, or what have you. The key to the definition, as I have written, is the [[Fairness Doctrine]] and its repeal in 1987.

Second, ''if'' [[Fox News]] has a bias, then it is a bias in favor of describing the world as it actually exists, not the world that [[Katherine Graham]]'s A-list cocktail-party circuit wanted described while she was alive--and still do, even though she is no longer around to direct it.

Ask yourself, if you are willing to be intellectually honest: why did all the organs I named, say exactly the same thing, almost in the same words, about any event? How often did these organs disagree with one another?

I repeat: [[Fox News]] is not mainstream, never was, never will be, and clearly does not want to be.

I think you're problem is that [[Fox News]] is permitted to continue to exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:01, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: "who does, and who does not, constitute Mainstream Media is strictly an historical definition only". Can you support this with refs? The word mainstream and alternative simply describe majority and minority audience appeal. Since all (both?) sides of the political spectrum use both terms to describe their antagonists, it's obvious that MSM at best describes the most widely viewed or recognised outlets. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 13:47, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Terry, do you think we could come to an agreement to merge this article and the [[MSM]] article, and their talk pages? As the latter is merely an acronym of the former, it might help clarify the debate if the dialogue was at least all brought into one place? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 12:31, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Brian; the two articles/talk pages should be merged into the Mainstream media article. After the merge, MSM should be a redirect. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

I merged the article and talk pages. The result needs work, please help. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 13:47, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*One sysop, proffering an opinion, here, in talk, does not an order make. You addressed your comments to TerryH, and within one hour made the changes you asked about, based upon one person's feed-back. That is not extensive involvement, and certainly violates our editing guidelines. We do not have a mobocracy here. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:32, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

OK, I will agree that one Sysop does not an order make. But what does, and how is an editor meant to know? What are your editing guidelines? And when another sysop - Niandra - posts instructions on redirecting for me on my own Talk page when it is clear he is doing so to help me, what am I meant to think? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 15:40, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*On your talk page, there is a HUGE yellow box with information. On the right side of it, are links to our Style Manual, etc. Niandra clearly was warning you about re-directing, and not encouraging you. No more twisting and [[deceit]], as this will be your final warning. And stop moving things! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:55, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

==Wikipedia References==
What does the discussion of Wikiepdia here have to do with anything? I'm confused. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:12, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:I removed that bit. Seems to be a mark of an unhealthy obession with Wikipedia. If it's supposed to illustrate some sort of bias (which isn't readily apparent), explain it and put it on the Bias in Wikipedia page. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 22:57, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

==Alternative Press==

I think it is confusing to use the term 'alternative press' in this context, as generally, the left-wing/freesheet/liberal press also call themselves the 'alternative press'. For ref, see Alternet as I've linked to above. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 12:34, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

== Moved From Aschlafly‎'s Page ==

Before I get banned, can you please take a look at TK's work over there, and mine? I worked really hard to be fair. BrianRobertson 15:07, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

You need to post on the article talk page, and not here, BrianRobertson. And you especially cannot, as a new editor remove and change the work of an Admin (TerryH) without discussing it on the articles talk page, and give a chance for a response. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 15:22, 2 August 2007 (EDT) 
I will post on the Talk page from now on Mr.Schlafly. However I had an urgent feeling TK was about to ban me, since he threatened such, and I wanted you to see that I had indeed been involved extensively on the Talk page already, and had at all times acted fairly. And, I believe, the locking of the article is counter-productive. BrianRobertson 15:25, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly"

== Moved from BrianRobertson's Talk Page ==

Please remove re-directs and merges. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:51, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I can't read your name? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 14:56, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*Sorry, it's about time to say goodbye.....--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:05, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

What?!!! You're going to BAN me?!!! [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*I certainly don't have a problem blocking vandals, which is what I consider you to be. You do not ask for feed-back, you revert the edits of one of our best contributors with little or no edit notes, and absolutely no discussion on the talk page. You have given a decidedly Liberal spin to the article, which we all know is a form of [[deceit]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:25, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Vandal? Hardly - I removed none of your content barring opinion. No Feed-back? Hardly - I offered evidence on the Talk page, we discussed it, others agreed. A Sysop - Crocoite - agreed with the redirect of an acronym. I gave notes constantly. I asked openly for "help" with the edit in the summary, and also added a "how am i doing?" in another summary. You can see extensive dialogue between you and I and others on the Talk page. And if adding references from widely accepted sources like Nielsen is 'liberal', I can't agree with that - they are used by every broadcaster worldwide. I can hardly see how much more open I could have been? I have not tried to deceive anyone, as I have characterised all entires as 'some believe one thing', providing references, and 'others believe another', providing references. I simply don't understand your comments. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 15:36, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*Brian, speedy posting, asking questions and then making even more massive changes, without allow 24 hours for others to respond, is [[deceit]]ful. You cannot say you are inviting a "dialog" and then not give others a chance to see your ideas. Dialog is not getting one agreement, with one idea, and then doing many things, predicated on that one agreement. You not only re-directed, but you also made large content changes as well, all without getting feedback. That, as I have said elsewhere, isn't allowed here. Or on WP for that matter. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:44, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

==Merging of MSM and Mainstream Media Articles==
One other point: would you agree that, forgetting everything else we're discussing, MSM should be a redirect to Mainstream Media? if not, can you explain why an acronym should NOT redirect to its actual term? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 15:48, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Speaking to this, we now have duplicate info on both MSM and Mainstream Media. For example, the removal of the blog info on CBS that TK did on this page has not been done on the other page. Yet another reason for a merge is that spelling and grammatical mistakes fixed on one page now exist on another. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 16:39, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*Yes. The world will not end if this situation continues for another 24 hours, Brian. I have messaged TerryH, and am more than content to await his feed-back. My agreement with something so obvious as the need for a merger is not in play here. What is in play is a new editor making massive and liberal-biased edits to those articles, all without discussion, or allowing time for any to take place. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:52, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

I stand by my firm belief that I greatly improved the article, and I do not agree that I added liberally biased information - on the contrary, I added clear proof that Fox News is the utterly dominant force in the media today!

You seem to suspect me of trying to push this article liberal, but I'd love you to understand that the very isolation conservatives feel from what is widely aired in the MSM is VERY MUCH shared by liberals. Both strong conservatives AND strong liberals complain loudly about the MSM, and both percieve it to have opposite bias. That is uncontestable, and is the ONLY theme that i wish to introduce to this article. What they would both DO about the percieved bias is a different matter, but those with strong views on BOTH sides of the political debate strongly disapprove of the MSM. And I think it unfair and low to accuse me of something so vile as deceit. I believe I have been the most open of any of you in this debate.

I have an answer to all this. I will stand back and make no edits until next week, and we'll see how we all get along. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 17:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Mainstream media

2007-08-02T21:07:19Z

BrianRobertson: You've completely missed my point. I recuse myself for a week.

== Do liberals really use the initials MSM to allege conservative bias in the media? ==

I don't see that. What I ''do'' see is most [[liberal]]s denying that the MSM have any bias at all. If anyone is accusing the MSM of having a conservative bias, it is usually those who are even further to the left--like the Daily Kos.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:18, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, they do. All sides of the political spectrum tend to feel that their views are not properly represented in the 'mainstream media', and given the fact that Fox News' viewing figures are now greater than CNN's, there's no denying - whatever one's views - that there are widely-aired viewpoints that do not concur with a liberal agenda. Most liberals would definitely feel that the 'MSM' is quite far to the right. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 21:24, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Well, I'll tell you what: why don't you go dig up a survey of people who describe themselves as liberal. Seems to me as though you're counting the voices of liberal politicians, editors, anchors, ''et cetera''.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:Alternet, a liberal news site, has some good refs that you can check: [http://alternet.org/workplace/58108/], [http://alternet.org/mediaculture/55915/], [http://alternet.org/story/54339/]

Oh, and one more thing: Don't tell me that Fox News is part of the MSM. It's not, they never pretend to be, and indeed they are proud to say that they are not.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:32, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: According to Nielsen:
:* Fox News has 9 of the 10 most viewed shows on Cable TV News in Dec 2006
:* Fox News mean peaktime viewing figures are triple that of MSNBC, and double that of CNN
:* "In 2006, more than half the people watching cable news were watching Fox News (as they have since 2001)."[http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_cabletv_audience.asp?cat=2&media=6]

:That sounds like the very definition of mainstream to me, no? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 22:12, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

I could've swore that MSM-status was decided by how mainstream something was, not whether or not it claimed to be mainstream... [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:35, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:Why don't you bring me a citation to that effect? What you did in fact swear (and in what forum?), or could or could not have sworn, is of no moment here.
:Never have I seen a definition of "mainstream media" based on numbers of patrons only. Take care: by your definition, Fox would be comfortably mainstream while [[CNN]] stood in danger of losing that status--along with [[The New York Times]], which is losing circulation with every passing year, if not every passing month.
:But you know, or should know, that that's not how it works. Why do you think that [[United States Senate|Senator]] [[Diane Feinstein]] wants to reinstitute the [[Fairness Doctrine]]? It's because she wants to rid the earth of the [[alternative media]] and leave only the [[mainstream media]] as I have defined and listed it in this article.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:: [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Mainstream How's this?] Not entirely sure what's up with the sentence after you asking for a citation, but in any case...
:: I'm shaking in fear of the you thinking the New York Times isn't mainstream. Absolutely terrified.
:: And finally: I wasn't aware that the US' policies affected the entire Earth... [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
:::The dictionary definition you gave, will serve at best for an [[etymology]] of the phrase ''mainstream media'' and not for a corrective to the common use of the term. Names stick, and often for reasons that no lexicographer would predict or can even understand after the fact.
:::Do you deny that ''[[The New York Times]]'' is losing circulation? See what I mean by defining ''mainstream media'' according to present circulation?
:::And as to US policies affecting the entire [[Earth]]--well, don't they? Does not the [[United States]] have the most powerful military of any nation-state now extant? As to "rid the earth": that kind of expression goes back to Roman times. For example:
{{Bible quote|Then they raised their voices and shouted, "Rid the earth of him! He's not fit to live!"|book=Acts|chap=22|verses=22|version=NIV}}--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:39, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives feel that everyone in the television MSM ''except'' Fox News has a liberal bias. That means ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. So the liberals think one station (Fox News) is conservative. That's leaves ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN with a liberal bias. It doesn't make sense for liberals to think that the 'MSM' is quite far to the right. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:That's wrong too - the more liberal or left-leaning, the more they feel that ALL channels and outlets are MSM. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 22:16, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

It's also used in any case where ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN understate something that Liberals feel to be a big issue, or taking the Administration's side just to be safe. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:39, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Should probably clarify- It's not shouted from the rooftops as much by Libs as by Cons. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Actually this idea of liberals using the MSM to mean conservative bias wouldn't be that surprising. They like to use our words and turn them into their liberal meaning. Like "gay" and "rainbow". --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:51, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, how dare they make rainbow mean "... optical and meteorological phenomena that cause a spectrum of light to appear in the sky when the Sun shines onto droplets of moisture in the Earth's atmosphere." Before, it was just "PRETTY THING FROM GOD!" And so it should always be. And that's, that's the way I feel about it! [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Alleged bias of [[Fox News]] ==

I direct this to User Kazumaru, who questions my definition of Mainstream Media.

First, who does, and who does not, constitute Mainstream Media is strictly an historical definition only. It has nothing to do with popularity or share of viewership, audience, readership, or what have you. The key to the definition, as I have written, is the [[Fairness Doctrine]] and its repeal in 1987.

Second, ''if'' [[Fox News]] has a bias, then it is a bias in favor of describing the world as it actually exists, not the world that [[Katherine Graham]]'s A-list cocktail-party circuit wanted described while she was alive--and still do, even though she is no longer around to direct it.

Ask yourself, if you are willing to be intellectually honest: why did all the organs I named, say exactly the same thing, almost in the same words, about any event? How often did these organs disagree with one another?

I repeat: [[Fox News]] is not mainstream, never was, never will be, and clearly does not want to be.

I think you're problem is that [[Fox News]] is permitted to continue to exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:01, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: "who does, and who does not, constitute Mainstream Media is strictly an historical definition only". Can you support this with refs? The word mainstream and alternative simply describe majority and minority audience appeal. Since all (both?) sides of the political spectrum use both terms to describe their antagonists, it's obvious that MSM at best describes the most widely viewed or recognised outlets. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 13:47, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Terry, do you think we could come to an agreement to merge this article and the [[MSM]] article, and their talk pages? As the latter is merely an acronym of the former, it might help clarify the debate if the dialogue was at least all brought into one place? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 12:31, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Brian; the two articles/talk pages should be merged into the Mainstream media article. After the merge, MSM should be a redirect. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

I merged the article and talk pages. The result needs work, please help. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 13:47, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*One sysop, proffering an opinion, here, in talk, does not an order make. You addressed your comments to TerryH, and within one hour made the changes you asked about, based upon one person's feed-back. That is not extensive involvement, and certainly violates our editing guidelines. We do not have a mobocracy here. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:32, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

OK, I will agree that one Sysop does not an order make. But what does, and how is an editor meant to know? What are your editing guidelines? And when another sysop - Niandra - posts instructions on redirecting for me on my own Talk page when it is clear he is doing so to help me, what am I meant to think? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 15:40, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*On your talk page, there is a HUGE yellow box with information. On the right side of it, are links to our Style Manual, etc. Niandra clearly was warning you about re-directing, and not encouraging you. No more twisting and [[deceit]], as this will be your final warning. And stop moving things! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:55, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

==Wikipedia References==
What does the discussion of Wikiepdia here have to do with anything? I'm confused. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:12, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:I removed that bit. Seems to be a mark of an unhealthy obession with Wikipedia. If it's supposed to illustrate some sort of bias (which isn't readily apparent), explain it and put it on the Bias in Wikipedia page. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 22:57, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

==Alternative Press==

I think it is confusing to use the term 'alternative press' in this context, as generally, the left-wing/freesheet/liberal press also call themselves the 'alternative press'. For ref, see Alternet as I've linked to above. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 12:34, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

== Moved From Aschlafly‎'s Page ==

Before I get banned, can you please take a look at TK's work over there, and mine? I worked really hard to be fair. BrianRobertson 15:07, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

You need to post on the article talk page, and not here, BrianRobertson. And you especially cannot, as a new editor remove and change the work of an Admin (TerryH) without discussing it on the articles talk page, and give a chance for a response. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 15:22, 2 August 2007 (EDT) 
I will post on the Talk page from now on Mr.Schlafly. However I had an urgent feeling TK was about to ban me, since he threatened such, and I wanted you to see that I had indeed been involved extensively on the Talk page already, and had at all times acted fairly. And, I believe, the locking of the article is counter-productive. BrianRobertson 15:25, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly"

== Moved from BrianRobertson's Talk Page ==

Please remove re-directs and merges. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:51, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I can't read your name? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 14:56, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*Sorry, it's about time to say goodbye.....--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:05, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

What?!!! You're going to BAN me?!!! [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*I certainly don't have a problem blocking vandals, which is what I consider you to be. You do not ask for feed-back, you revert the edits of one of our best contributors with little or no edit notes, and absolutely no discussion on the talk page. You have given a decidedly Liberal spin to the article, which we all know is a form of [[deceit]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:25, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Vandal? Hardly - I removed none of your content barring opinion. No Feed-back? Hardly - I offered evidence on the Talk page, we discussed it, others agreed. A Sysop - Crocoite - agreed with the redirect of an acronym. I gave notes constantly. I asked openly for "help" with the edit in the summary, and also added a "how am i doing?" in another summary. You can see extensive dialogue between you and I and others on the Talk page. And if adding references from widely accepted sources like Nielsen is 'liberal', I can't agree with that - they are used by every broadcaster worldwide. I can hardly see how much more open I could have been? I have not tried to deceive anyone, as I have characterised all entires as 'some believe one thing', providing references, and 'others believe another', providing references. I simply don't understand your comments. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 15:36, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*Brian, speedy posting, asking questions and then making even more massive changes, without allow 24 hours for others to respond, is [[deceit]]ful. You cannot say you are inviting a "dialog" and then not give others a chance to see your ideas. Dialog is not getting one agreement, with one idea, and then doing many things, predicated on that one agreement. You not only re-directed, but you also made large content changes as well, all without getting feedback. That, as I have said elsewhere, isn't allowed here. Or on WP for that matter. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:44, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

==Merging of MSM and Mainstream Media Articles==
One other point: would you agree that, forgetting everything else we're discussing, MSM should be a redirect to Mainstream Media? if not, can you explain why an acronym should NOT redirect to its actual term? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 15:48, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Speaking to this, we now have duplicate info on both MSM and Mainstream Media. For example, the removal of the blog info on CBS that TK did on this page has not been done on the other page. Yet another reason for a merge is that spelling and grammatical mistakes fixed on one page now exist on another. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 16:39, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*Yes. The world will not end if this situation continues for another 24 hours, Brian. I have messaged TerryH, and am more than content to await his feed-back. My agreement with something so obvious as the need for a merger is not in play here. What is in play is a new editor making massive and liberal-biased edits to those articles, all without discussion, or allowing time for any to take place. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:52, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

I stand by my firm belief that I greatly improved the article, and I do not agree that I added liberally biased information - on the contrary, I added clear proof that Fox News is the utterly dominant force in the media today!

You seem to suspect me of trying to push this article liberal, but I'd love you to understand that the very isolation conservatives feel from what is widely aired in the MSM is VERY MUCH shared by liberals. Both strong conservatives AND strong liberals complain loudly about the MSM, and both percieve it to have opposite bias. That is uncontestable, and is the ONLY theme that i wish to introduce to this article. What they would both DO about the percieved bias is a different matter, but those with strong views on BOTH sides of the political debate strongly disapprove of the MSM. And I think it unfair and low to accuse me of something so vile as deceit. I believe I have been the most open of any of you in this debate.

I have an answer to all this. I will stand back and make no edits until next week, and we'll see how we all get along.

I would point out in passing that the removal of the references wherein 'liberal' media use the term 'mainstream media' in a negative connotation is unfortunate, as it is exactly answers TerryH's initial comments here on the Talk page that liberals never use the term.

Talk:Mainstream media

2007-08-02T20:39:13Z

BrianRobertson: /* Debate over the merge of MSM and Mainstream Media */

== Do liberals really use the initials MSM to allege conservative bias in the media? ==

I don't see that. What I ''do'' see is most [[liberal]]s denying that the MSM have any bias at all. If anyone is accusing the MSM of having a conservative bias, it is usually those who are even further to the left--like the Daily Kos.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:18, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, they do. All sides of the political spectrum tend to feel that their views are not properly represented in the 'mainstream media', and given the fact that Fox News' viewing figures are now greater than CNN's, there's no denying - whatever one's views - that there are widely-aired viewpoints that do not concur with a liberal agenda. Most liberals would definitely feel that the 'MSM' is quite far to the right. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 21:24, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Well, I'll tell you what: why don't you go dig up a survey of people who describe themselves as liberal. Seems to me as though you're counting the voices of liberal politicians, editors, anchors, ''et cetera''.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:Alternet, a liberal news site, has some good refs that you can check: [http://alternet.org/workplace/58108/], [http://alternet.org/mediaculture/55915/], [http://alternet.org/story/54339/]

Oh, and one more thing: Don't tell me that Fox News is part of the MSM. It's not, they never pretend to be, and indeed they are proud to say that they are not.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:32, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: According to Nielsen:
:* Fox News has 9 of the 10 most viewed shows on Cable TV News in Dec 2006
:* Fox News mean peaktime viewing figures are triple that of MSNBC, and double that of CNN
:* "In 2006, more than half the people watching cable news were watching Fox News (as they have since 2001)."[http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_cabletv_audience.asp?cat=2&media=6]

:That sounds like the very definition of mainstream to me, no? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 22:12, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

I could've swore that MSM-status was decided by how mainstream something was, not whether or not it claimed to be mainstream... [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:35, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:Why don't you bring me a citation to that effect? What you did in fact swear (and in what forum?), or could or could not have sworn, is of no moment here.
:Never have I seen a definition of "mainstream media" based on numbers of patrons only. Take care: by your definition, Fox would be comfortably mainstream while [[CNN]] stood in danger of losing that status--along with [[The New York Times]], which is losing circulation with every passing year, if not every passing month.
:But you know, or should know, that that's not how it works. Why do you think that [[United States Senate|Senator]] [[Diane Feinstein]] wants to reinstitute the [[Fairness Doctrine]]? It's because she wants to rid the earth of the [[alternative media]] and leave only the [[mainstream media]] as I have defined and listed it in this article.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:: [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Mainstream How's this?] Not entirely sure what's up with the sentence after you asking for a citation, but in any case...
:: I'm shaking in fear of the you thinking the New York Times isn't mainstream. Absolutely terrified.
:: And finally: I wasn't aware that the US' policies affected the entire Earth... [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
:::The dictionary definition you gave, will serve at best for an [[etymology]] of the phrase ''mainstream media'' and not for a corrective to the common use of the term. Names stick, and often for reasons that no lexicographer would predict or can even understand after the fact.
:::Do you deny that ''[[The New York Times]]'' is losing circulation? See what I mean by defining ''mainstream media'' according to present circulation?
:::And as to US policies affecting the entire [[Earth]]--well, don't they? Does not the [[United States]] have the most powerful military of any nation-state now extant? As to "rid the earth": that kind of expression goes back to Roman times. For example:
{{Bible quote|Then they raised their voices and shouted, "Rid the earth of him! He's not fit to live!"|book=Acts|chap=22|verses=22|version=NIV}}--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:39, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives feel that everyone in the television MSM ''except'' Fox News has a liberal bias. That means ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. So the liberals think one station (Fox News) is conservative. That's leaves ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN with a liberal bias. It doesn't make sense for liberals to think that the 'MSM' is quite far to the right. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:That's wrong too - the more liberal or left-leaning, the more they feel that ALL channels and outlets are MSM. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 22:16, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

It's also used in any case where ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN understate something that Liberals feel to be a big issue, or taking the Administration's side just to be safe. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:39, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Should probably clarify- It's not shouted from the rooftops as much by Libs as by Cons. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Actually this idea of liberals using the MSM to mean conservative bias wouldn't be that surprising. They like to use our words and turn them into their liberal meaning. Like "gay" and "rainbow". --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:51, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, how dare they make rainbow mean "... optical and meteorological phenomena that cause a spectrum of light to appear in the sky when the Sun shines onto droplets of moisture in the Earth's atmosphere." Before, it was just "PRETTY THING FROM GOD!" And so it should always be. And that's, that's the way I feel about it! [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Alleged bias of [[Fox News]] ==

I direct this to User Kazumaru, who questions my definition of Mainstream Media.

First, who does, and who does not, constitute Mainstream Media is strictly an historical definition only. It has nothing to do with popularity or share of viewership, audience, readership, or what have you. The key to the definition, as I have written, is the [[Fairness Doctrine]] and its repeal in 1987.

Second, ''if'' [[Fox News]] has a bias, then it is a bias in favor of describing the world as it actually exists, not the world that [[Katherine Graham]]'s A-list cocktail-party circuit wanted described while she was alive--and still do, even though she is no longer around to direct it.

Ask yourself, if you are willing to be intellectually honest: why did all the organs I named, say exactly the same thing, almost in the same words, about any event? How often did these organs disagree with one another?

I repeat: [[Fox News]] is not mainstream, never was, never will be, and clearly does not want to be.

I think you're problem is that [[Fox News]] is permitted to continue to exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:01, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: "who does, and who does not, constitute Mainstream Media is strictly an historical definition only". Can you support this with refs? The word mainstream and alternative simply describe majority and minority audience appeal. Since all (both?) sides of the political spectrum use both terms to describe their antagonists, it's obvious that MSM at best describes the most widely viewed or recognised outlets. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 13:47, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Terry, do you think we could come to an agreement to merge this article and the [[MSM]] article, and their talk pages? As the latter is merely an acronym of the former, it might help clarify the debate if the dialogue was at least all brought into one place? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 12:31, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Brian; the two articles/talk pages should be merged into the Mainstream media article. After the merge, MSM should be a redirect. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

I merged the article and talk pages. The result needs work, please help. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 13:47, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*One sysop, proffering an opinion, here, in talk, does not an order make. You addressed your comments to TerryH, and within one hour made the changes you asked about, based upon one person's feed-back. That is not extensive involvement, and certainly violates our editing guidelines. We do not have a mobocracy here. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:32, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

OK, I will agree that one Sysop does not an order make. But what does, and how is an editor meant to know? What are your editing guidelines? And when another sysop - Niandra - posts instructions on redirecting for me on my own Talk page when it is clear he is doing so to help me, what am I meant to think? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 15:40, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*On your talk page, there is a HUGE yellow box with information. On the right side of it, are links to our Style Manual, etc. Niandra clearly was warning you about re-directing, and not encouraging you. No more twisting and [[deceit]], as this will be your final warning. And stop moving things! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:55, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

==Wikipedia References==
What does the discussion of Wikiepdia here have to do with anything? I'm confused. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:12, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:I removed that bit. Seems to be a mark of an unhealthy obession with Wikipedia. If it's supposed to illustrate some sort of bias (which isn't readily apparent), explain it and put it on the Bias in Wikipedia page. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 22:57, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

==Alternative Press==

I think it is confusing to use the term 'alternative press' in this context, as generally, the left-wing/freesheet/liberal press also call themselves the 'alternative press'. For ref, see Alternet as I've linked to above. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 12:34, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

== Moved From Aschlafly‎'s Page ==

Before I get banned, can you please take a look at TK's work over there, and mine? I worked really hard to be fair. BrianRobertson 15:07, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

You need to post on the article talk page, and not here, BrianRobertson. And you especially cannot, as a new editor remove and change the work of an Admin (TerryH) without discussing it on the articles talk page, and give a chance for a response. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 15:22, 2 August 2007 (EDT) 
I will post on the Talk page from now on Mr.Schlafly. However I had an urgent feeling TK was about to ban me, since he threatened such, and I wanted you to see that I had indeed been involved extensively on the Talk page already, and had at all times acted fairly. And, I believe, the locking of the article is counter-productive. BrianRobertson 15:25, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly"

== Moved from BrianRobertson's Talk Page ==

Please remove re-directs and merges. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:51, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I can't read your name? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 14:56, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*Sorry, it's about time to say goodbye.....--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:05, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

What?!!! You're going to BAN me?!!! [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*I certainly don't have a problem blocking vandals, which is what I consider you to be. You do not ask for feed-back, you revert the edits of one of our best contributors with little or no edit notes, and absolutely no discussion on the talk page. You have given a decidedly Liberal spin to the article, which we all know is a form of [[deceit]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:25, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Vandal? Hardly - I removed none of your content barring opinion. No Feed-back? Hardly - I offered evidence on the Talk page, we discussed it, others agreed. A Sysop - Crocoite - agreed with the redirect of an acronym. I gave notes constantly. I asked openly for "help" with the edit in the summary, and also added a "how am i doing?" in another summary. You can see extensive dialogue between you and I and others on the Talk page. And if adding references from widely accepted sources like Nielsen is 'liberal', I can't agree with that - they are used by every broadcaster worldwide. I can hardly see how much more open I could have been? I have not tried to deceive anyone, as I have characterised all entires as 'some believe one thing', providing references, and 'others believe another', providing references. I simply don't understand your comments. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 15:36, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

==Merging of MSM and Mainstream Media Articles==
One other point: would you agree that, forgetting everything else we're discussing, MSM should be a redirect to Mainstream Media? if not, can you explain why an acronym should NOT redirect to its actual term? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 15:48, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Speaking to this, we now have duplicate info on both MSM and Mainstream Media. For example, the removal of the blog info on CBS that TK did on this page has not been done on the other page. Yet another reason for a merge is that spelling and grammatical mistakes fixed on one page now exist on another. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 16:39, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Mainstream media

2007-08-02T20:16:34Z

BrianRobertson: moved

== Do liberals really use the initials MSM to allege conservative bias in the media? ==

I don't see that. What I ''do'' see is most [[liberal]]s denying that the MSM have any bias at all. If anyone is accusing the MSM of having a conservative bias, it is usually those who are even further to the left--like the Daily Kos.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:18, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, they do. All sides of the political spectrum tend to feel that their views are not properly represented in the 'mainstream media', and given the fact that Fox News' viewing figures are now greater than CNN's, there's no denying - whatever one's views - that there are widely-aired viewpoints that do not concur with a liberal agenda. Most liberals would definitely feel that the 'MSM' is quite far to the right. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 21:24, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Well, I'll tell you what: why don't you go dig up a survey of people who describe themselves as liberal. Seems to me as though you're counting the voices of liberal politicians, editors, anchors, ''et cetera''.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:Alternet, a liberal news site, has some good refs that you can check: [http://alternet.org/workplace/58108/], [http://alternet.org/mediaculture/55915/], [http://alternet.org/story/54339/]

Oh, and one more thing: Don't tell me that Fox News is part of the MSM. It's not, they never pretend to be, and indeed they are proud to say that they are not.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:32, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: According to Nielsen:
:* Fox News has 9 of the 10 most viewed shows on Cable TV News in Dec 2006
:* Fox News mean peaktime viewing figures are triple that of MSNBC, and double that of CNN
:* "In 2006, more than half the people watching cable news were watching Fox News (as they have since 2001)."[http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_cabletv_audience.asp?cat=2&media=6]

:That sounds like the very definition of mainstream to me, no? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 22:12, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

I could've swore that MSM-status was decided by how mainstream something was, not whether or not it claimed to be mainstream... [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:35, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:Why don't you bring me a citation to that effect? What you did in fact swear (and in what forum?), or could or could not have sworn, is of no moment here.
:Never have I seen a definition of "mainstream media" based on numbers of patrons only. Take care: by your definition, Fox would be comfortably mainstream while [[CNN]] stood in danger of losing that status--along with [[The New York Times]], which is losing circulation with every passing year, if not every passing month.
:But you know, or should know, that that's not how it works. Why do you think that [[United States Senate|Senator]] [[Diane Feinstein]] wants to reinstitute the [[Fairness Doctrine]]? It's because she wants to rid the earth of the [[alternative media]] and leave only the [[mainstream media]] as I have defined and listed it in this article.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:: [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Mainstream How's this?] Not entirely sure what's up with the sentence after you asking for a citation, but in any case...
:: I'm shaking in fear of the you thinking the New York Times isn't mainstream. Absolutely terrified.
:: And finally: I wasn't aware that the US' policies affected the entire Earth... [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
:::The dictionary definition you gave, will serve at best for an [[etymology]] of the phrase ''mainstream media'' and not for a corrective to the common use of the term. Names stick, and often for reasons that no lexicographer would predict or can even understand after the fact.
:::Do you deny that ''[[The New York Times]]'' is losing circulation? See what I mean by defining ''mainstream media'' according to present circulation?
:::And as to US policies affecting the entire [[Earth]]--well, don't they? Does not the [[United States]] have the most powerful military of any nation-state now extant? As to "rid the earth": that kind of expression goes back to Roman times. For example:
{{Bible quote|Then they raised their voices and shouted, "Rid the earth of him! He's not fit to live!"|book=Acts|chap=22|verses=22|version=NIV}}--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:39, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives feel that everyone in the television MSM ''except'' Fox News has a liberal bias. That means ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. So the liberals think one station (Fox News) is conservative. That's leaves ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN with a liberal bias. It doesn't make sense for liberals to think that the 'MSM' is quite far to the right. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:That's wrong too - the more liberal or left-leaning, the more they feel that ALL channels and outlets are MSM. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 22:16, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

It's also used in any case where ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN understate something that Liberals feel to be a big issue, or taking the Administration's side just to be safe. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:39, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Should probably clarify- It's not shouted from the rooftops as much by Libs as by Cons. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Actually this idea of liberals using the MSM to mean conservative bias wouldn't be that surprising. They like to use our words and turn them into their liberal meaning. Like "gay" and "rainbow". --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:51, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, how dare they make rainbow mean "... optical and meteorological phenomena that cause a spectrum of light to appear in the sky when the Sun shines onto droplets of moisture in the Earth's atmosphere." Before, it was just "PRETTY THING FROM GOD!" And so it should always be. And that's, that's the way I feel about it! [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Alleged bias of [[Fox News]] ==

I direct this to User Kazumaru, who questions my definition of Mainstream Media.

First, who does, and who does not, constitute Mainstream Media is strictly an historical definition only. It has nothing to do with popularity or share of viewership, audience, readership, or what have you. The key to the definition, as I have written, is the [[Fairness Doctrine]] and its repeal in 1987.

Second, ''if'' [[Fox News]] has a bias, then it is a bias in favor of describing the world as it actually exists, not the world that [[Katherine Graham]]'s A-list cocktail-party circuit wanted described while she was alive--and still do, even though she is no longer around to direct it.

Ask yourself, if you are willing to be intellectually honest: why did all the organs I named, say exactly the same thing, almost in the same words, about any event? How often did these organs disagree with one another?

I repeat: [[Fox News]] is not mainstream, never was, never will be, and clearly does not want to be.

I think you're problem is that [[Fox News]] is permitted to continue to exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:01, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: "who does, and who does not, constitute Mainstream Media is strictly an historical definition only". Can you support this with refs? The word mainstream and alternative simply describe majority and minority audience appeal. Since all (both?) sides of the political spectrum use both terms to describe their antagonists, it's obvious that MSM at best describes the most widely viewed or recognised outlets. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 13:47, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Terry, do you think we could come to an agreement to merge this article and the [[MSM]] article, and their talk pages? As the latter is merely an acronym of the former, it might help clarify the debate if the dialogue was at least all brought into one place? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 12:31, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Brian; the two articles/talk pages should be merged into the Mainstream media article. After the merge, MSM should be a redirect. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

I merged the article and talk pages. The result needs work, please help. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 13:47, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*One sysop, proffering an opinion, here, in talk, does not an order make. You addressed your comments to TerryH, and within one hour made the changes you asked about, based upon one person's feed-back. That is not extensive involvement, and certainly violates our editing guidelines. We do not have a mobocracy here. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:32, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

OK, I will agree that one Sysop does not an order make. But what does, and how is an editor meant to know? What are your editing guidelines? And when another sysop - Niandra - posts instructions on redirecting for me on my own Talk page when it is clear he is doing so to help me, what am I meant to think? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 15:40, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*On your talk page, there is a HUGE yellow box with information. On the right side of it, are links to our Style Manual, etc. Niandra clearly was warning you about re-directing, and not encouraging you. No more twisting and [[deceit]], as this will be your final warning. And stop moving things! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:55, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

==Wikipedia References==
What does the discussion of Wikiepdia here have to do with anything? I'm confused. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:12, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:I removed that bit. Seems to be a mark of an unhealthy obession with Wikipedia. If it's supposed to illustrate some sort of bias (which isn't readily apparent), explain it and put it on the Bias in Wikipedia page. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 22:57, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

==Alternative Press==

I think it is confusing to use the term 'alternative press' in this context, as generally, the left-wing/freesheet/liberal press also call themselves the 'alternative press'. For ref, see Alternet as I've linked to above. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 12:34, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

== Moved From Aschlafly‎'s Page ==

Before I get banned, can you please take a look at TK's work over there, and mine? I worked really hard to be fair. BrianRobertson 15:07, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

You need to post on the article talk page, and not here, BrianRobertson. And you especially cannot, as a new editor remove and change the work of an Admin (TerryH) without discussing it on the articles talk page, and give a chance for a response. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 15:22, 2 August 2007 (EDT) 
I will post on the Talk page from now on Mr.Schlafly. However I had an urgent feeling TK was about to ban me, since he threatened such, and I wanted you to see that I had indeed been involved extensively on the Talk page already, and had at all times acted fairly. And, I believe, the locking of the article is counter-productive. BrianRobertson 15:25, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly"

== Moved from BrianRobertson's Talk Page ==

Please remove re-directs and merges. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:51, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I can't read your name? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 14:56, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*Sorry, it's about time to say goodbye.....--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:05, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

What?!!! You're going to BAN me?!!! [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*I certainly don't have a problem blocking vandals, which is what I consider you to be. You do not ask for feed-back, you revert the edits of one of our best contributors with little or no edit notes, and absolutely no discussion on the talk page. You have given a decidedly Liberal spin to the article, which we all know is a form of [[deceit]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:25, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Vandal? Hardly - I removed none of your content barring opinion. No Feed-back? Hardly - I offered evidence on the Talk page, we discussed it, others agreed. A Sysop - Crocoite - agreed with the redirect of an acronym. I gave notes constantly. I asked openly for "help" with the edit in the summary, and also added a "how am i doing?" in another summary. You can see extensive dialogue between you and I and others on the Talk page. And if adding references from widely accepted sources like Nielsen is 'liberal', I can't agree with that - they are used by every broadcaster worldwide. I can hardly see how much more open I could have been? I have not tried to deceive anyone, as I have characterised all entires as 'some believe one thing', providing references, and 'others believe another', providing references. I simply don't understand your comments. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 15:36, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

==Debate over the merge of MSM and Mainstream Media==
One other point: would you agree that, forgetting everything else we're discussing, MSM should be a redirect to Mainstream Media? if not, can you explain why an acronym should NOT redirect to its actual term? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 15:48, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

User talk:BrianRobertson

2007-08-02T20:15:28Z

BrianRobertson: moving.....

Talk:Mainstream media

2007-08-02T19:53:22Z

BrianRobertson: moved

== Do liberals really use the initials MSM to allege conservative bias in the media? ==

I don't see that. What I ''do'' see is most [[liberal]]s denying that the MSM have any bias at all. If anyone is accusing the MSM of having a conservative bias, it is usually those who are even further to the left--like the Daily Kos.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:18, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, they do. All sides of the political spectrum tend to feel that their views are not properly represented in the 'mainstream media', and given the fact that Fox News' viewing figures are now greater than CNN's, there's no denying - whatever one's views - that there are widely-aired viewpoints that do not concur with a liberal agenda. Most liberals would definitely feel that the 'MSM' is quite far to the right. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 21:24, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Well, I'll tell you what: why don't you go dig up a survey of people who describe themselves as liberal. Seems to me as though you're counting the voices of liberal politicians, editors, anchors, ''et cetera''.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:Alternet, a liberal news site, has some good refs that you can check: [http://alternet.org/workplace/58108/], [http://alternet.org/mediaculture/55915/], [http://alternet.org/story/54339/]

Oh, and one more thing: Don't tell me that Fox News is part of the MSM. It's not, they never pretend to be, and indeed they are proud to say that they are not.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:32, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: According to Nielsen:
:* Fox News has 9 of the 10 most viewed shows on Cable TV News in Dec 2006
:* Fox News mean peaktime viewing figures are triple that of MSNBC, and double that of CNN
:* "In 2006, more than half the people watching cable news were watching Fox News (as they have since 2001)."[http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_cabletv_audience.asp?cat=2&media=6]

:That sounds like the very definition of mainstream to me, no? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 22:12, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

I could've swore that MSM-status was decided by how mainstream something was, not whether or not it claimed to be mainstream... [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:35, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:Why don't you bring me a citation to that effect? What you did in fact swear (and in what forum?), or could or could not have sworn, is of no moment here.
:Never have I seen a definition of "mainstream media" based on numbers of patrons only. Take care: by your definition, Fox would be comfortably mainstream while [[CNN]] stood in danger of losing that status--along with [[The New York Times]], which is losing circulation with every passing year, if not every passing month.
:But you know, or should know, that that's not how it works. Why do you think that [[United States Senate|Senator]] [[Diane Feinstein]] wants to reinstitute the [[Fairness Doctrine]]? It's because she wants to rid the earth of the [[alternative media]] and leave only the [[mainstream media]] as I have defined and listed it in this article.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:: [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Mainstream How's this?] Not entirely sure what's up with the sentence after you asking for a citation, but in any case...
:: I'm shaking in fear of the you thinking the New York Times isn't mainstream. Absolutely terrified.
:: And finally: I wasn't aware that the US' policies affected the entire Earth... [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
:::The dictionary definition you gave, will serve at best for an [[etymology]] of the phrase ''mainstream media'' and not for a corrective to the common use of the term. Names stick, and often for reasons that no lexicographer would predict or can even understand after the fact.
:::Do you deny that ''[[The New York Times]]'' is losing circulation? See what I mean by defining ''mainstream media'' according to present circulation?
:::And as to US policies affecting the entire [[Earth]]--well, don't they? Does not the [[United States]] have the most powerful military of any nation-state now extant? As to "rid the earth": that kind of expression goes back to Roman times. For example:
{{Bible quote|Then they raised their voices and shouted, "Rid the earth of him! He's not fit to live!"|book=Acts|chap=22|verses=22|version=NIV}}--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:39, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives feel that everyone in the television MSM ''except'' Fox News has a liberal bias. That means ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. So the liberals think one station (Fox News) is conservative. That's leaves ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN with a liberal bias. It doesn't make sense for liberals to think that the 'MSM' is quite far to the right. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:That's wrong too - the more liberal or left-leaning, the more they feel that ALL channels and outlets are MSM. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 22:16, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

It's also used in any case where ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN understate something that Liberals feel to be a big issue, or taking the Administration's side just to be safe. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:39, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Should probably clarify- It's not shouted from the rooftops as much by Libs as by Cons. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Actually this idea of liberals using the MSM to mean conservative bias wouldn't be that surprising. They like to use our words and turn them into their liberal meaning. Like "gay" and "rainbow". --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:51, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, how dare they make rainbow mean "... optical and meteorological phenomena that cause a spectrum of light to appear in the sky when the Sun shines onto droplets of moisture in the Earth's atmosphere." Before, it was just "PRETTY THING FROM GOD!" And so it should always be. And that's, that's the way I feel about it! [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

== Alleged bias of [[Fox News]] ==

I direct this to User Kazumaru, who questions my definition of Mainstream Media.

First, who does, and who does not, constitute Mainstream Media is strictly an historical definition only. It has nothing to do with popularity or share of viewership, audience, readership, or what have you. The key to the definition, as I have written, is the [[Fairness Doctrine]] and its repeal in 1987.

Second, ''if'' [[Fox News]] has a bias, then it is a bias in favor of describing the world as it actually exists, not the world that [[Katherine Graham]]'s A-list cocktail-party circuit wanted described while she was alive--and still do, even though she is no longer around to direct it.

Ask yourself, if you are willing to be intellectually honest: why did all the organs I named, say exactly the same thing, almost in the same words, about any event? How often did these organs disagree with one another?

I repeat: [[Fox News]] is not mainstream, never was, never will be, and clearly does not want to be.

I think you're problem is that [[Fox News]] is permitted to continue to exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:01, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: "who does, and who does not, constitute Mainstream Media is strictly an historical definition only". Can you support this with refs? The word mainstream and alternative simply describe majority and minority audience appeal. Since all (both?) sides of the political spectrum use both terms to describe their antagonists, it's obvious that MSM at best describes the most widely viewed or recognised outlets. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 13:47, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Terry, do you think we could come to an agreement to merge this article and the [[MSM]] article, and their talk pages? As the latter is merely an acronym of the former, it might help clarify the debate if the dialogue was at least all brought into one place? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 12:31, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Brian; the two articles/talk pages should be merged into the Mainstream media article. After the merge, MSM should be a redirect. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

I merged the article and talk pages. The result needs work, please help. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 13:47, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*One sysop, proffering an opinion, here, in talk, does not an order make. You addressed your comments to TerryH, and within one hour made the changes you asked about, based upon one person's feed-back. That is not extensive involvement, and certainly violates our editing guidelines. We do not have a mobocracy here. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:32, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

OK, I will agree that one Sysop does not an order make. But what does, and how is an editor meant to know? What are your editing guidelines? And when another sysop - Niandra - posts instructions on redirecting for me on my own Talk page when it is clear he is doing so to help me, what am I meant to think? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 15:40, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

==Wikipedia References==
What does the discussion of Wikiepdia here have to do with anything? I'm confused. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:12, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:I removed that bit. Seems to be a mark of an unhealthy obession with Wikipedia. If it's supposed to illustrate some sort of bias (which isn't readily apparent), explain it and put it on the Bias in Wikipedia page. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 22:57, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

==Alternative Press==

I think it is confusing to use the term 'alternative press' in this context, as generally, the left-wing/freesheet/liberal press also call themselves the 'alternative press'. For ref, see Alternet as I've linked to above. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 12:34, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

== Moved From Aschlafly‎'s Page ==

Before I get banned, can you please take a look at TK's work over there, and mine? I worked really hard to be fair. BrianRobertson 15:07, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

You need to post on the article talk page, and not here, BrianRobertson. And you especially cannot, as a new editor remove and change the work of an Admin (TerryH) without discussing it on the articles talk page, and give a chance for a response. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 15:22, 2 August 2007 (EDT) 
I will post on the Talk page from now on Mr.Schlafly. However I had an urgent feeling TK was about to ban me, since he threatened such, and I wanted you to see that I had indeed been involved extensively on the Talk page already, and had at all times acted fairly. And, I believe, the locking of the article is counter-productive. BrianRobertson 15:25, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Retrieved from "http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly"

==Moved from TK's Talk Page==
OK, I saw that coming. I can't agree that locking the page is the correct way forward. I removed none of your content, greatly improved the article with references, gave a little balance without opinion, delinked an acronym for the term, and yet you changed it to suit yourself and locked it? I juust spent an hour working to improve the article! Please explain your motivation. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 15:05, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*As you were warned by another Sysop, we do not allow editors, especially new ones, to decide what is re-directed, and what is re-named, and we especially don't allow new editors to take the work of an Administrator and gut it. What wiki have you used that does allow that? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:07, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

I was not warned by anyone, and Crocoite agrees that MSM, being simply an acronym of Mainstream Media, should be a redirect. Would USAF not be a redirect to US Air Force? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 15:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

==Debate over the merge of MSM and Mainstream Media==
One other point: would you agree that, forgetting everything else we're discussing, MSM should be a redirect to Mainstream Media? if not, can you explain why an acronym should NOT redirect to its actual term? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 15:48, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Mainstream media

2007-08-02T19:48:40Z

BrianRobertson: Acronym policy?

Talk:Mainstream media

2007-08-02T19:40:59Z

BrianRobertson: /* Alleged bias of Fox News */

Talk:Mainstream media

2007-08-02T19:40:15Z

BrianRobertson: I am not attempting to edit by mob, not at all

User talk:BrianRobertson

2007-08-02T19:36:39Z

BrianRobertson: I don't understand

{{welcome|sig=[[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 01:49, 2 August 2007 (EDT)}}

Please take note - http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Manual_of_Style#Re-Directs_.26_Name_Changes

[[User:Niandra|Niandra]] [[User talk:Niandra|talk]] 13:27, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Niandra! Exactly the info I was looking for! I messed it up the first time. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 13:29, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

== Mainstream Media.... ==

Please remove re-directs and merges. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 14:51, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, I can't read your name? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 14:56, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*Sorry, it's about time to say goodbye.....--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:05, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

What?!!! You're going to BAN me?!!! [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 15:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

*I certainly don't have a problem blocking vandals, which is what I consider you to be. You do not ask for feed-back, you revert the edits of one of our best contributors with little or no edit notes, and absolutely no discussion on the talk page. You have given a decidedly Liberal spin to the article, which we all know is a form of [[deceit]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 15:25, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Vandal? Hardly - I removed none of your content barring opinion. No Feed-back? Hardly - I offered evidence on the Talk page, we discussed it, others agreed. A Sysop - Crocoite - agreed with the redirect of an acronym. I gave notes constantly. I asked openly for "help" with the edit in the summary, and also added a "how am i doing?" in another summary. You can see extensive dialogue between you and I and others on the Talk page. And if adding references from widely accepted sources like Nielsen is 'liberal', I can't agree with that - they are used by every broadcaster worldwide. I can hardly see how much more open I could have been? I have not tried to deceive anyone, as I have characterised all entires as 'some believe one thing', providing references, and 'others believe another', providing references. I simply don't understand your comments. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 15:36, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

User talk:BrianRobertson

2007-08-02T19:06:21Z

BrianRobertson: Bannaed?!!!

Mainstream media

2007-08-02T19:01:41Z

BrianRobertson: OK, let's meet in the middle but let's agree not to just use their catch phrase

==Definition==

Controversy exists over the meaning and definition of the terms '''Mainstream Media''' or its acronym '''MSM'''<ref>
Both [[Conservative]]s and [[Liberal]]s use the [[acronym]] '''MSM''' to describe the '''[[mainstream media]]'''</ref>. Some consider the '''mainstream media''' to consist primarily of those media organs that existed in the [[United States of America]] prior to 1987, and especially any of those media organs that continue to exist today. Others take a view that the term 'mainstream', no matter the context, simply refers to 'that which is most popular'.

== Fairness Doctrine ==
In 1987, the [[Federal Communications Commission]] voted 4-0 to revoke, and cancel their enforcement of, the [[Fairness Doctrine]]. That doctrine mandated that if any opinion considered "controversial" were ever discussed on the public airwaves, the station over which that opinion aired was required to give [[equal time]] to any person wishing to reply. However, the FCC never set a standard about ''interpretations'' of current events that might be disputable, nor even examined that issue.

With the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, [[radio]] and [[television]] stations were now permitted to air any opinion or interpretation of the news, no matter how "controversial," without regard to the giving of "equal time."

On [[August 1]], [[1988]], a new radio commentator named [[Rush Limbaugh]] began [[broadcast]]ing in national [[syndication]].

== List of mainstream media organs ==
Some consider the mainstream media to consist of the following outlets:

'''Newspapers'''
* [[The New York Times]]
* [[The Washington Post]]
* [[The Boston Globe]]
* [[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]
* [[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]]
* [[The Los Angeles Times]]
* [[The San Francisco Chronicle]]
* [[USA Today]]
* The [[Wall Street Journal]]<ref>The inclusion of ''The Wall Street Journal'' might strike some media observers as strange, until one remembers that, though its editorial board is [[conservative]] on most issues (except for immigration), its [[city room]] is definitely [[liberal]] in orientation and coverage of the news.</ref>
* All major, standard-newspaper-format dailies that have existed since before the Fairness Doctrine repeal.

'''News Syndication Agencies'''
* [[AP|Associated Press]]
* [[UPI|United Press International]]
* [[Reuters]]

'''Television'''
* [[CBS]]
* [[NBC]]
* [[ABC]]
* [[National Public Radio]]
* [[PBS|Public Broadcasting Service]]
* The [[CNN|Cable News Network]]
* [[Fox News]]

Some consider [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]] to not be "mainstream media", because they frequently present a different viewpoint to the above news outlets. One example given is that in 2007, the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] [[2008_Presidential_Election#Declared_Democratic_Party_Candidates|presidential candidates]] have declared they will not appear on presidential debates hosted by Fox News, due to what they perceive as bias, but they will appear on other MSM news outlets.

Others consider Fox News very much part of the Mainstream Media, as, according to ratings organisation Nielsen:
:* Fox News has 9 of the 10 most viewed shows on Cable TV News (as of Dec 2006)
:* Fox News mean peaktime viewing figures are triple that of MSNBC, and double that of CNN
:* "In 2006, more than half the people watching cable news were watching Fox News" [http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_cabletv_audience.asp?cat=2&media=6]

===CNN===
In 2006 CNN.com has an article from columnist R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. entitled "Tyrell: Goodbye MSM... and good riddance!" <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/tyrrell.msm/index.html?iref=newssearch</ref> The article talks about the [[alternative press]] vs the MSM:

<blockquote> So we hear this week that President George W. Bush is taking delight in the spread of the "alternative press" (read conservatives on the internet, in talk radio, in print, and at Fox) and the gentle detumesence of "mainstream media" (read liberal media, or more precisely, Democratic media). Well I join him in his satisfaction. </blockquote>

=='Alternative Media'==
Differing opinions also exist over the defninition of a similar term - '''Alternative Media'''. Although some consider, for example, [[Rush Limbaugh]]'s launch to be the birth of 'alternative media', so too do the left consider publications like [[The Nation]] to be 'alternative media' [http://www.zmag.org/whatmakesalti.htm]. In fact, many would view the [[Village Voice]] group to be the most widely published 'alternative media' outlet in the United States.

==References and notes==
Liberal uses of the term 'mainstream media' - [http://alternet.org/workplace/58108/], [http://alternet.org/mediaculture/55915/], [http://alternet.org/story/54339/]
<references/>

[[Category:Media]]
[[category:political terms]]

MSM

2007-08-02T18:58:26Z

BrianRobertson: I won't edit war on this, but Crocoite supported me, I removed none of your content, and it's just an acronym. Please discuss before undoing all my hard work

#redirect [[Mainstream media]]

User talk:BrianRobertson

2007-08-02T18:56:11Z

BrianRobertson:

Mainstream media

2007-08-02T18:55:34Z

BrianRobertson:

==Definition==

Controversy exists over the meaning and definition of the terms '''Mainstream Media''' or its acronym '''MSM'''<ref>
Both [[Conservative]]s and [[Liberal]]s use the [[acronym]] '''MSM''' to describe the '''[[mainstream media]]'''</ref>. Some consider the '''mainstream media''' to consist primarily of those media organs that existed in the [[United States of America]] prior to 1987, and especially any of those media organs that continue to exist today. Others take a view that the term 'mainstream', no matter the context, simply refers to 'that which is most popular'.

== Fairness Doctrine ==
In 1987, the [[Federal Communications Commission]] voted 4-0 to revoke, and cancel their enforcement of, the [[Fairness Doctrine]]. That doctrine mandated that if any opinion considered "controversial" were ever discussed on the public airwaves, the station over which that opinion aired was required to give [[equal time]] to any person wishing to reply. However, the FCC never set a standard about ''interpretations'' of current events that might be disputable, nor even examined that issue.

With the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, [[radio]] and [[television]] stations were now permitted to air any opinion or interpretation of the news, no matter how "controversial," without regard to the giving of "equal time."

On [[August 1]], [[1988]], a new radio commentator named [[Rush Limbaugh]] began [[broadcast]]ing in national [[syndication]].

== List of mainstream media organs ==
Some consider the mainstream media to consist of the following outlets:

'''Newspapers'''
* [[The New York Times]]
* [[The Washington Post]]
* [[The Boston Globe]]
* [[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]
* [[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]]
* [[The Los Angeles Times]]
* [[The San Francisco Chronicle]]
* [[USA Today]]
* The [[Wall Street Journal]]<ref>The inclusion of ''The Wall Street Journal'' might strike some media observers as strange, until one remembers that, though its editorial board is [[conservative]] on most issues (except for immigration), its [[city room]] is definitely [[liberal]] in orientation and coverage of the news.</ref>
* All major, standard-newspaper-format dailies that have existed since before the Fairness Doctrine repeal.

'''News Syndication Agencies'''
* [[AP|Associated Press]]
* [[UPI|United Press International]]
* [[Reuters]]

'''Television'''
* [[CBS]]
* [[NBC]]
* [[ABC]]
* [[National Public Radio]]
* [[PBS|Public Broadcasting Service]]
* The [[CNN|Cable News Network]]
* [[Fox News]]

Some consider [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]] to not be "mainstream media", because they frequently present a different, often more conservative viewpoint to some of the above news outlets. One example given is that in 2007, the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] [[2008_Presidential_Election#Declared_Democratic_Party_Candidates|presidential candidates]] have declared they will not appear on presidential debates hosted by Fox News, due to what they perceive as bias, but they will appear on other news outlets.

Others consider Fox News very much part of the Mainstream Media, as, according to ratings organisation Nielsen:
:* Fox News has 9 of the 10 most viewed shows on Cable TV News (as of Dec 2006)
:* Fox News mean peaktime viewing figures are triple that of MSNBC, and double that of CNN
:* "In 2006, more than half the people watching cable news were watching Fox News" [http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_cabletv_audience.asp?cat=2&media=6]

==Quotes==

===CBS===
In 2006 CBS.com wrote an article on blogs <ref> [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/09/sunday/main1786520.shtml?source=search_story Brave New Blogging World]</ref> which accurately describes the conservative view of the MSM:

<blockquote> The blog format is only a couple of years old. But already, there's a tension between many bloggers and what they derisively call the MSM, the mainstream media.

"They don't believe that you are unbiased, objective, fair a lot of times. And so what they want is they want to read a lot of different sources themselves. because they don't trust the mainstream media…that would be ya'll," says Darr. </blockquote>

===CNN===
In 2006 CNN.com has an article from columnist R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. entitled "Tyrell: Goodbye MSM... and good riddance!" <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/tyrrell.msm/index.html?iref=newssearch</ref> The article talks about the [[alternative press]] vs the MSM:

<blockquote> So we hear this week that President George W. Bush is taking delight in the spread of the "alternative press" (read conservatives on the internet, in talk radio, in print, and at Fox) and the gentle detumesence of "mainstream media" (read liberal media, or more precisely, Democratic media). Well I join him in his satisfaction. </blockquote>

=='Alternative Media'==
Differing opinions also exist over the defninition of a similar term - '''Alternative Media'''. Although some consider, for example, [[Rush Limbaugh]]'s launch to be the birth of 'alternative media', so too do the left consider publications like [[The Nation]] to be 'alternative media' [http://www.zmag.org/whatmakesalti.htm]. In fact, many would view the [[Village Voice]] group to be the most widely published 'alternative media' outlet in the United States.

==References and notes==
Liberal uses of the term 'mainstream media' - [http://alternet.org/workplace/58108/], [http://alternet.org/mediaculture/55915/], [http://alternet.org/story/54339/]
<references/>

[[Category:Media]]
[[category:political terms]]

Mainstream media

2007-08-02T18:51:28Z

BrianRobertson: remove opinion

==Definition==

Controversy exists over the meaning and definition of the terms '''Mainstream Media''' or its acronym '''MSM'''<ref>
Both [[Conservative]]s and [[Liberal]]s use the [[acronym]] '''MSM''' to describe the '''[[mainstream media]]'''</ref>. Some consider the '''mainstream media''' to consist primarily of those media organs that existed in the [[United States of America]] prior to 1987, and especially any of those media organs that continue to exist today. Others take a view that the term 'mainstream', no matter the context, simply refers to 'that which is most popular'.

== Fairness Doctrine ==
In 1987, the [[Federal Communications Commission]] voted 4-0 to revoke, and cancel their enforcement of, the [[Fairness Doctrine]]. That doctrine mandated that if any opinion considered "controversial" were ever discussed on the public airwaves, the station over which that opinion aired was required to give [[equal time]] to any person wishing to reply. However, the FCC never set a standard about ''interpretations'' of current events that might be disputable, nor even examined that issue.

With the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, [[radio]] and [[television]] stations were now permitted to air any opinion or interpretation of the news, no matter how "controversial," without regard to the giving of "equal time."

On [[August 1]], [[1988]], a new radio commentator named [[Rush Limbaugh]] began [[broadcast]]ing in national [[syndication]].

== List of mainstream media organs ==
Some consider the mainstream media to consist of the following outlets:

'''Newspapers'''
* [[The New York Times]]
* [[The Washington Post]]
* [[The Boston Globe]]
* [[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]
* [[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]]
* [[The Los Angeles Times]]
* [[The San Francisco Chronicle]]
* [[USA Today]]
* The [[Wall Street Journal]]<ref>The inclusion of ''The Wall Street Journal'' might strike some media observers as strange, until one remembers that, though its editorial board is [[conservative]] on most issues (except for immigration), its [[city room]] is definitely [[liberal]] in orientation and coverage of the news.</ref>
* All major, standard-newspaper-format dailies that have existed since before the Fairness Doctrine repeal.

'''News Syndication Agencies'''
* [[AP|Associated Press]]
* [[UPI|United Press International]]
* [[Reuters]]

'''Television'''
* [[CBS]]
* [[NBC]]
* [[ABC]]
* [[National Public Radio]]
* [[PBS|Public Broadcasting Service]]
* The [[CNN|Cable News Network]]
* [[Fox News]]

Some consider [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]] to not be "mainstream media", because they frequently present a different, often more conservative viewpoint to some of the above news outlets. One example given is that in 2007, the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] [[2008_Presidential_Election#Declared_Democratic_Party_Candidates|presidential candidates]] have declared they will not appear on presidential debates hosted by Fox News, due to what they perceive as bias, but they will appear on other news outlets.

Others consider Fox News very much part of the Mainstream Media, as, according to ratings organisation Nielsen:
:* Fox News has 9 of the 10 most viewed shows on Cable TV News (as of Dec 2006)
:* Fox News mean peaktime viewing figures are triple that of MSNBC, and double that of CNN
:* "In 2006, more than half the people watching cable news were watching Fox News" [http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_cabletv_audience.asp?cat=2&media=6]

==Quotes==

===CBS===
In 2006 CBS.com wrote an article on blogs <ref> [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/09/sunday/main1786520.shtml?source=search_story Brave New Blogging World]</ref> which accurately describes the conservative view of the MSM:

<blockquote> The blog format is only a couple of years old. But already, there's a tension between many bloggers and what they derisively call the MSM, the mainstream media.

"They don't believe that you are unbiased, objective, fair a lot of times. And so what they want is they want to read a lot of different sources themselves. because they don't trust the mainstream media…that would be ya'll," says Darr. </blockquote>

===CNN===
In 2006 CNN.com has an article from columnist R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. entitled "Tyrell: Goodbye MSM... and good riddance!" <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/tyrrell.msm/index.html?iref=newssearch</ref> The article talks about the [[alternative press]] vs the MSM:

<blockquote> So we hear this week that President George W. Bush is taking delight in the spread of the "alternative press" (read conservatives on the internet, in talk radio, in print, and at Fox) and the gentle detumesence of "mainstream media" (read liberal media, or more precisely, Democratic media). Well I join him in his satisfaction. </blockquote>

==References and notes==
Liberal uses of the term 'mainstream media' - [http://alternet.org/workplace/58108/], [http://alternet.org/mediaculture/55915/], [http://alternet.org/story/54339/]
<references/>

[[Category:Media]]
[[category:political terms]]

Mainstream media

2007-08-02T18:42:46Z

BrianRobertson: How am I doing? :-)

==Definition==

Controversy exists over the meaning and definition of the terms '''Mainstream Media''' or its acronym '''MSM'''<ref>
Both [[Conservative]]s and [[Liberal]]s use the [[acronym]] '''MSM''' to describe the '''[[mainstream media]]'''</ref>. Some consider the '''mainstream media''' to consist primarily of those media organs that existed in the [[United States of America]] prior to 1987, and especially any of those media organs that continue to exist today. Others take a view that the term 'mainstream', no matter the context, simply refers to 'that which is most popular'.

== Fairness Doctrine ==
In 1987, the [[Federal Communications Commission]] voted 4-0 to revoke, and cancel their enforcement of, the [[Fairness Doctrine]]. That doctrine mandated that if any opinion considered "controversial" were ever discussed on the public airwaves, the station over which that opinion aired was required to give [[equal time]] to any person wishing to reply. However, the FCC never set a standard about ''interpretations'' of current events that might be disputable, nor even examined that issue.

With the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, [[radio]] and [[television]] stations were now permitted to air any opinion or interpretation of the news, no matter how "controversial," without regard to the giving of "equal time."

On [[August 1]], [[1988]], a new radio commentator named [[Rush Limbaugh]] began [[broadcast]]ing in national [[syndication]]. The [[alternative media]] was born.

== List of mainstream media organs ==
Some consider the mainstream media to consist of the following outlets:

'''Newspapers'''
* [[The New York Times]]
* [[The Washington Post]]
* [[The Boston Globe]]
* [[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]
* [[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]]
* [[The Los Angeles Times]]
* [[The San Francisco Chronicle]]
* [[USA Today]]
* The [[Wall Street Journal]]<ref>The inclusion of ''The Wall Street Journal'' might strike some media observers as strange, until one remembers that, though its editorial board is [[conservative]] on most issues (except for immigration), its [[city room]] is definitely [[liberal]] in orientation and coverage of the news.</ref>
* All major, standard-newspaper-format dailies that have existed since before the Fairness Doctrine repeal.

'''News Syndication Agencies'''
* [[AP|Associated Press]]
* [[UPI|United Press International]]
* [[Reuters]]

'''Television'''
* [[CBS]]
* [[NBC]]
* [[ABC]]
* [[National Public Radio]]
* [[PBS|Public Broadcasting Service]]
* The [[CNN|Cable News Network]]
* [[Fox News]]

Some consider [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]] to not be "mainstream media", because they frequently present a different, often more conservative viewpoint to some of the above news outlets. One example given is that in 2007, the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] [[2008_Presidential_Election#Declared_Democratic_Party_Candidates|presidential candidates]] have declared they will not appear on presidential debates hosted by Fox News, due to what they perceive as bias, but they will appear on other news outlets.

Others consider Fox News very much part of the Mainstream Media, as, according to ratings organisation Nielsen:
:* Fox News has 9 of the 10 most viewed shows on Cable TV News (as of Dec 2006)
:* Fox News mean peaktime viewing figures are triple that of MSNBC, and double that of CNN
:* "In 2006, more than half the people watching cable news were watching Fox News" [http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_cabletv_audience.asp?cat=2&media=6]

==Quotes==

===CBS===
In 2006 CBS.com wrote an article on blogs <ref> [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/09/sunday/main1786520.shtml?source=search_story Brave New Blogging World]</ref> which accurately describes the conservative view of the MSM:

<blockquote> The blog format is only a couple of years old. But already, there's a tension between many bloggers and what they derisively call the MSM, the mainstream media.

"They don't believe that you are unbiased, objective, fair a lot of times. And so what they want is they want to read a lot of different sources themselves. because they don't trust the mainstream media…that would be ya'll," says Darr. </blockquote>

===CNN===
In 2006 CNN.com has an article from columnist R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. entitled "Tyrell: Goodbye MSM... and good riddance!" <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/tyrrell.msm/index.html?iref=newssearch</ref> The article talks about the [[alternative press]] vs the MSM:

<blockquote> So we hear this week that President George W. Bush is taking delight in the spread of the "alternative press" (read conservatives on the internet, in talk radio, in print, and at Fox) and the gentle detumesence of "mainstream media" (read liberal media, or more precisely, Democratic media). Well I join him in his satisfaction. </blockquote>

==References and notes==
Liberal uses of the term 'mainstream media' - [http://alternet.org/workplace/58108/], [http://alternet.org/mediaculture/55915/], [http://alternet.org/story/54339/]
<references/>

[[Category:Media]]
[[category:political terms]]

Mainstream media

2007-08-02T18:40:37Z

BrianRobertson: /* List of mainstream media organs */

==Definition==

Controversy exists over the meaning and definition of the terms '''Mainstream Media''' or its acronym '''MSM'''<ref>
Both [[Conservative]]s and [[Liberal]]s use the [[acronym]] '''MSM''' to describe the '''[[mainstream media]]'''</ref>. Some consider the '''mainstream media''' to consist primarily of those media organs that existed in the [[United States of America]] prior to 1987, and especially any of those media organs that continue to exist today. Others take a view that the term 'mainstream', no matter the context, simply refers to 'that which is most popular'.

== Fairness Doctrine ==
In 1987, the [[Federal Communications Commission]] voted 4-0 to revoke, and cancel their enforcement of, the [[Fairness Doctrine]]. That doctrine mandated that if any opinion considered "controversial" were ever discussed on the public airwaves, the station over which that opinion aired was required to give [[equal time]] to any person wishing to reply. However, the FCC never set a standard about ''interpretations'' of current events that might be disputable, nor even examined that issue.

With the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, [[radio]] and [[television]] stations were now permitted to air any opinion or interpretation of the news, no matter how "controversial," without regard to the giving of "equal time."

On [[August 1]], [[1988]], a new radio commentator named [[Rush Limbaugh]] began [[broadcast]]ing in national [[syndication]]. The [[alternative media]] was born.

== List of mainstream media organs ==
Some consider the mainstream media to consist of the following outlets:

'''Newspapers'''
* [[The New York Times]]
* [[The Washington Post]]
* [[The Boston Globe]]
* [[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]
* [[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]]
* [[The Los Angeles Times]]
* [[The San Francisco Chronicle]]
* [[USA Today]]
* The [[Wall Street Journal]]<ref>The inclusion of ''The Wall Street Journal'' might strike some media observers as strange, until one remembers that, though its editorial board is [[conservative]] on most issues (except for immigration), its [[city room]] is definitely [[liberal]] in orientation and coverage of the news.</ref>
* All major, standard-newspaper-format dailies that have existed since before the Fairness Doctrine repeal.

'''News Syndication Agencies'''
* [[AP|Associated Press]]
* [[UPI|United Press International]]
* [[Reuters]]

'''Television'''
* [[CBS]]
* [[NBC]]
* [[ABC]]
* [[National Public Radio]]
* [[PBS|Public Broadcasting Service]]
* The [[CNN|Cable News Network]]
* [[Fox News]]

Some consider [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]] to not be "mainstream media", because they are frequently present a different viewpoint to many of the above news outlets. For example, the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] [[2008_Presidential_Election#Declared_Democratic_Party_Candidates|presidential candidates]] will not appear on presidential debates hosted by Fox News, but they will appear on other news outlets.

Others consider Fox News very much part of the Mainstream Media, as, according to ratings organisation Nielsen:

:* Fox News has 9 of the 10 most viewed shows on Cable TV News (as of Dec 2006)
:* Fox News mean peaktime viewing figures are triple that of MSNBC, and double that of CNN
:* "In 2006, more than half the people watching cable news were watching Fox News" [http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_cabletv_audience.asp?cat=2&media=6]

==Quotes==

===CBS===
In 2006 CBS.com wrote an article on blogs <ref> [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/09/sunday/main1786520.shtml?source=search_story Brave New Blogging World]</ref> which accurately describes the conservative view of the MSM:

<blockquote> The blog format is only a couple of years old. But already, there's a tension between many bloggers and what they derisively call the MSM, the mainstream media.

"They don't believe that you are unbiased, objective, fair a lot of times. And so what they want is they want to read a lot of different sources themselves. because they don't trust the mainstream media…that would be ya'll," says Darr. </blockquote>

===CNN===
In 2006 CNN.com has an article from columnist R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. entitled "Tyrell: Goodbye MSM... and good riddance!" <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/tyrrell.msm/index.html?iref=newssearch</ref> The article talks about the [[alternative press]] vs the MSM:

<blockquote> So we hear this week that President George W. Bush is taking delight in the spread of the "alternative press" (read conservatives on the internet, in talk radio, in print, and at Fox) and the gentle detumesence of "mainstream media" (read liberal media, or more precisely, Democratic media). Well I join him in his satisfaction. </blockquote>

==References and notes==
Liberal uses of the term 'mainstream media' - [http://alternet.org/workplace/58108/], [http://alternet.org/mediaculture/55915/], [http://alternet.org/story/54339/]
<references/>

[[Category:Media]]
[[category:political terms]]

Mainstream media

2007-08-02T18:38:02Z

BrianRobertson: /* References and notes */

==Definition==

Controversy exists over the meaning and definition of the terms '''Mainstream Media''' or its acronym '''MSM'''<ref>
Both [[Conservative]]s and [[Liberal]]s use the [[acronym]] '''MSM''' to describe the '''[[mainstream media]]'''</ref>. Some consider the '''mainstream media''' to consist primarily of those media organs that existed in the [[United States of America]] prior to 1987, and especially any of those media organs that continue to exist today. Others take a view that the term 'mainstream', no matter the context, simply refers to 'that which is most popular'.

== Fairness Doctrine ==
In 1987, the [[Federal Communications Commission]] voted 4-0 to revoke, and cancel their enforcement of, the [[Fairness Doctrine]]. That doctrine mandated that if any opinion considered "controversial" were ever discussed on the public airwaves, the station over which that opinion aired was required to give [[equal time]] to any person wishing to reply. However, the FCC never set a standard about ''interpretations'' of current events that might be disputable, nor even examined that issue.

With the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, [[radio]] and [[television]] stations were now permitted to air any opinion or interpretation of the news, no matter how "controversial," without regard to the giving of "equal time."

On [[August 1]], [[1988]], a new radio commentator named [[Rush Limbaugh]] began [[broadcast]]ing in national [[syndication]]. The [[alternative media]] was born.

== List of mainstream media organs ==
Some consider the mainstream media to consist of the following outlets:

'''Newspapers'''
* [[The New York Times]]
* [[The Washington Post]]
* [[The Boston Globe]]
* [[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]
* [[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]]
* [[The Los Angeles Times]]
* [[The San Francisco Chronicle]]
* [[USA Today]]
* The [[Wall Street Journal]]<ref>The inclusion of ''The Wall Street Journal'' might strike some media observers as strange, until one remembers that, though its editorial board is [[conservative]] on most issues (except for immigration), its [[city room]] is definitely [[liberal]] in orientation and coverage of the news.</ref>
* All major, standard-newspaper-format dailies that have existed since before the Fairness Doctrine repeal.

'''News Syndication Agencies'''
* [[AP|Associated Press]]
* [[UPI|United Press International]]
* [[Reuters]]

'''Television'''
* [[CBS]]
* [[NBC]]
* [[ABC]]
* [[National Public Radio]]
* [[PBS|Public Broadcasting Service]]
* The [[CNN|Cable News Network]]
* [[Fox News]]

Some consider [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]] to not be "mainstream media", because they are frequently present a different viewpoint to many of the above news outlets. For example, the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] [[2008_Presidential_Election#Declared_Democratic_Party_Candidates|presidential candidates]] will not appear on presidential debates hosted by Fox News, but they will appear on other news outlets.

Others consider Fox News very much part of the Mainstream Media, as, according to ratings organisation Nielsen:

:* Fox News has 9 of the 10 most viewed shows on Cable TV News in Dec 2006
:* Fox News mean peaktime viewing figures are triple that of MSNBC, and double that of CNN
:* "In 2006, more than half the people watching cable news were watching Fox News" [http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_cabletv_audience.asp?cat=2&media=6]

==Quotes==

===CBS===
In 2006 CBS.com wrote an article on blogs <ref> [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/09/sunday/main1786520.shtml?source=search_story Brave New Blogging World]</ref> which accurately describes the conservative view of the MSM:

<blockquote> The blog format is only a couple of years old. But already, there's a tension between many bloggers and what they derisively call the MSM, the mainstream media.

"They don't believe that you are unbiased, objective, fair a lot of times. And so what they want is they want to read a lot of different sources themselves. because they don't trust the mainstream media…that would be ya'll," says Darr. </blockquote>

===CNN===
In 2006 CNN.com has an article from columnist R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. entitled "Tyrell: Goodbye MSM... and good riddance!" <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/tyrrell.msm/index.html?iref=newssearch</ref> The article talks about the [[alternative press]] vs the MSM:

<blockquote> So we hear this week that President George W. Bush is taking delight in the spread of the "alternative press" (read conservatives on the internet, in talk radio, in print, and at Fox) and the gentle detumesence of "mainstream media" (read liberal media, or more precisely, Democratic media). Well I join him in his satisfaction. </blockquote>

==References and notes==
Liberal uses of the term 'mainstream media' - [http://alternet.org/workplace/58108/], [http://alternet.org/mediaculture/55915/], [http://alternet.org/story/54339/]
<references/>

[[Category:Media]]
[[category:political terms]]

Mainstream media

2007-08-02T18:37:19Z

BrianRobertson: /* Definition */

==Definition==

Controversy exists over the meaning and definition of the terms '''Mainstream Media''' or its acronym '''MSM'''<ref>
Both [[Conservative]]s and [[Liberal]]s use the [[acronym]] '''MSM''' to describe the '''[[mainstream media]]'''</ref>. Some consider the '''mainstream media''' to consist primarily of those media organs that existed in the [[United States of America]] prior to 1987, and especially any of those media organs that continue to exist today. Others take a view that the term 'mainstream', no matter the context, simply refers to 'that which is most popular'.

== Fairness Doctrine ==
In 1987, the [[Federal Communications Commission]] voted 4-0 to revoke, and cancel their enforcement of, the [[Fairness Doctrine]]. That doctrine mandated that if any opinion considered "controversial" were ever discussed on the public airwaves, the station over which that opinion aired was required to give [[equal time]] to any person wishing to reply. However, the FCC never set a standard about ''interpretations'' of current events that might be disputable, nor even examined that issue.

With the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, [[radio]] and [[television]] stations were now permitted to air any opinion or interpretation of the news, no matter how "controversial," without regard to the giving of "equal time."

On [[August 1]], [[1988]], a new radio commentator named [[Rush Limbaugh]] began [[broadcast]]ing in national [[syndication]]. The [[alternative media]] was born.

== List of mainstream media organs ==
Some consider the mainstream media to consist of the following outlets:

'''Newspapers'''
* [[The New York Times]]
* [[The Washington Post]]
* [[The Boston Globe]]
* [[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]
* [[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]]
* [[The Los Angeles Times]]
* [[The San Francisco Chronicle]]
* [[USA Today]]
* The [[Wall Street Journal]]<ref>The inclusion of ''The Wall Street Journal'' might strike some media observers as strange, until one remembers that, though its editorial board is [[conservative]] on most issues (except for immigration), its [[city room]] is definitely [[liberal]] in orientation and coverage of the news.</ref>
* All major, standard-newspaper-format dailies that have existed since before the Fairness Doctrine repeal.

'''News Syndication Agencies'''
* [[AP|Associated Press]]
* [[UPI|United Press International]]
* [[Reuters]]

'''Television'''
* [[CBS]]
* [[NBC]]
* [[ABC]]
* [[National Public Radio]]
* [[PBS|Public Broadcasting Service]]
* The [[CNN|Cable News Network]]
* [[Fox News]]

Some consider [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]] to not be "mainstream media", because they are frequently present a different viewpoint to many of the above news outlets. For example, the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] [[2008_Presidential_Election#Declared_Democratic_Party_Candidates|presidential candidates]] will not appear on presidential debates hosted by Fox News, but they will appear on other news outlets.

Others consider Fox News very much part of the Mainstream Media, as, according to ratings organisation Nielsen:

:* Fox News has 9 of the 10 most viewed shows on Cable TV News in Dec 2006
:* Fox News mean peaktime viewing figures are triple that of MSNBC, and double that of CNN
:* "In 2006, more than half the people watching cable news were watching Fox News" [http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_cabletv_audience.asp?cat=2&media=6]

==Quotes==

===CBS===
In 2006 CBS.com wrote an article on blogs <ref> [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/09/sunday/main1786520.shtml?source=search_story Brave New Blogging World]</ref> which accurately describes the conservative view of the MSM:

<blockquote> The blog format is only a couple of years old. But already, there's a tension between many bloggers and what they derisively call the MSM, the mainstream media.

"They don't believe that you are unbiased, objective, fair a lot of times. And so what they want is they want to read a lot of different sources themselves. because they don't trust the mainstream media…that would be ya'll," says Darr. </blockquote>

===CNN===
In 2006 CNN.com has an article from columnist R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. entitled "Tyrell: Goodbye MSM... and good riddance!" <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/tyrrell.msm/index.html?iref=newssearch</ref> The article talks about the [[alternative press]] vs the MSM:

<blockquote> So we hear this week that President George W. Bush is taking delight in the spread of the "alternative press" (read conservatives on the internet, in talk radio, in print, and at Fox) and the gentle detumesence of "mainstream media" (read liberal media, or more precisely, Democratic media). Well I join him in his satisfaction. </blockquote>

==References and notes==
[http://alternet.org/workplace/58108/], [http://alternet.org/mediaculture/55915/], [http://alternet.org/story/54339/]
<references/>

[[Category:Media]]
[[category:political terms]]

Mainstream media

2007-08-02T18:36:49Z

BrianRobertson: refs

==Definition==

Controversy exists over the meaning and definition of the terms '''Mainstream Media''' or '''MSM'''<ref>
Both [[Conservative]]s and [[Liberal]]s use the [[acronym]] '''MSM''' to describe the '''[[mainstream media]]'''</ref>. Some consider the '''mainstream media''' to consist primarily of those media organs that existed in the [[United States of America]] prior to 1987, and especially any of those media organs that continue to exist today. Others take a view that the term 'mainstream', no matter the context, simply refers to 'that which is most popular'.

== Fairness Doctrine ==
In 1987, the [[Federal Communications Commission]] voted 4-0 to revoke, and cancel their enforcement of, the [[Fairness Doctrine]]. That doctrine mandated that if any opinion considered "controversial" were ever discussed on the public airwaves, the station over which that opinion aired was required to give [[equal time]] to any person wishing to reply. However, the FCC never set a standard about ''interpretations'' of current events that might be disputable, nor even examined that issue.

With the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, [[radio]] and [[television]] stations were now permitted to air any opinion or interpretation of the news, no matter how "controversial," without regard to the giving of "equal time."

On [[August 1]], [[1988]], a new radio commentator named [[Rush Limbaugh]] began [[broadcast]]ing in national [[syndication]]. The [[alternative media]] was born.

== List of mainstream media organs ==
Some consider the mainstream media to consist of the following outlets:

'''Newspapers'''
* [[The New York Times]]
* [[The Washington Post]]
* [[The Boston Globe]]
* [[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]
* [[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]]
* [[The Los Angeles Times]]
* [[The San Francisco Chronicle]]
* [[USA Today]]
* The [[Wall Street Journal]]<ref>The inclusion of ''The Wall Street Journal'' might strike some media observers as strange, until one remembers that, though its editorial board is [[conservative]] on most issues (except for immigration), its [[city room]] is definitely [[liberal]] in orientation and coverage of the news.</ref>
* All major, standard-newspaper-format dailies that have existed since before the Fairness Doctrine repeal.

'''News Syndication Agencies'''
* [[AP|Associated Press]]
* [[UPI|United Press International]]
* [[Reuters]]

'''Television'''
* [[CBS]]
* [[NBC]]
* [[ABC]]
* [[National Public Radio]]
* [[PBS|Public Broadcasting Service]]
* The [[CNN|Cable News Network]]
* [[Fox News]]

Some consider [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]] to not be "mainstream media", because they are frequently present a different viewpoint to many of the above news outlets. For example, the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] [[2008_Presidential_Election#Declared_Democratic_Party_Candidates|presidential candidates]] will not appear on presidential debates hosted by Fox News, but they will appear on other news outlets.

Others consider Fox News very much part of the Mainstream Media, as, according to ratings organisation Nielsen:

:* Fox News has 9 of the 10 most viewed shows on Cable TV News in Dec 2006
:* Fox News mean peaktime viewing figures are triple that of MSNBC, and double that of CNN
:* "In 2006, more than half the people watching cable news were watching Fox News" [http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_cabletv_audience.asp?cat=2&media=6]

==Quotes==

===CBS===
In 2006 CBS.com wrote an article on blogs <ref> [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/09/sunday/main1786520.shtml?source=search_story Brave New Blogging World]</ref> which accurately describes the conservative view of the MSM:

<blockquote> The blog format is only a couple of years old. But already, there's a tension between many bloggers and what they derisively call the MSM, the mainstream media.

"They don't believe that you are unbiased, objective, fair a lot of times. And so what they want is they want to read a lot of different sources themselves. because they don't trust the mainstream media…that would be ya'll," says Darr. </blockquote>

===CNN===
In 2006 CNN.com has an article from columnist R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. entitled "Tyrell: Goodbye MSM... and good riddance!" <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/tyrrell.msm/index.html?iref=newssearch</ref> The article talks about the [[alternative press]] vs the MSM:

<blockquote> So we hear this week that President George W. Bush is taking delight in the spread of the "alternative press" (read conservatives on the internet, in talk radio, in print, and at Fox) and the gentle detumesence of "mainstream media" (read liberal media, or more precisely, Democratic media). Well I join him in his satisfaction. </blockquote>

==References and notes==
[http://alternet.org/workplace/58108/], [http://alternet.org/mediaculture/55915/], [http://alternet.org/story/54339/]
<references/>

[[Category:Media]]
[[category:political terms]]

Mainstream media

2007-08-02T18:35:17Z

BrianRobertson: /* List of mainstream media organs */

==Definition==

Controversy exists over the meaning and definition of the terms '''Mainstream Media''' or '''MSM'''. Some consider the '''mainstream media''' to consist primarily of those media organs that existed in the [[United States of America]] prior to 1987, and especially any of those media organs that continue to exist today. Others take a view that the term 'mainstream', no matter the context, simply refers to 'that which is most popular'.

== Fairness Doctrine ==
In 1987, the [[Federal Communications Commission]] voted 4-0 to revoke, and cancel their enforcement of, the [[Fairness Doctrine]]. That doctrine mandated that if any opinion considered "controversial" were ever discussed on the public airwaves, the station over which that opinion aired was required to give [[equal time]] to any person wishing to reply. However, the FCC never set a standard about ''interpretations'' of current events that might be disputable, nor even examined that issue.

With the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, [[radio]] and [[television]] stations were now permitted to air any opinion or interpretation of the news, no matter how "controversial," without regard to the giving of "equal time."

On [[August 1]], [[1988]], a new radio commentator named [[Rush Limbaugh]] began [[broadcast]]ing in national [[syndication]]. The [[alternative media]] was born.

== List of mainstream media organs ==
Some consider the mainstream media to consist of the following outlets:

'''Newspapers'''
* [[The New York Times]]
* [[The Washington Post]]
* [[The Boston Globe]]
* [[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]
* [[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]]
* [[The Los Angeles Times]]
* [[The San Francisco Chronicle]]
* [[USA Today]]
* The [[Wall Street Journal]]<ref>The inclusion of ''The Wall Street Journal'' might strike some media observers as strange, until one remembers that, though its editorial board is [[conservative]] on most issues (except for immigration), its [[city room]] is definitely [[liberal]] in orientation and coverage of the news.</ref>
* All major, standard-newspaper-format dailies that have existed since before the Fairness Doctrine repeal.

'''News Syndication Agencies'''
* [[AP|Associated Press]]
* [[UPI|United Press International]]
* [[Reuters]]

'''Television'''
* [[CBS]]
* [[NBC]]
* [[ABC]]
* [[National Public Radio]]
* [[PBS|Public Broadcasting Service]]
* The [[CNN|Cable News Network]]
* [[Fox News]]

Some consider [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]] to not be "mainstream media", because they are frequently present a different viewpoint to many of the above news outlets. For example, the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] [[2008_Presidential_Election#Declared_Democratic_Party_Candidates|presidential candidates]] will not appear on presidential debates hosted by Fox News, but they will appear on other news outlets.

Others consider Fox News very much part of the Mainstream Media, as, according to ratings organisation Nielsen:

:* Fox News has 9 of the 10 most viewed shows on Cable TV News in Dec 2006
:* Fox News mean peaktime viewing figures are triple that of MSNBC, and double that of CNN
:* "In 2006, more than half the people watching cable news were watching Fox News" [http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_cabletv_audience.asp?cat=2&media=6]

==MSM==

Both [[Conservative]]s and [[Liberal]]s use the [[acronym]] '''MSM''' to describe the '''[[mainstream media]]''' and its apparent [[bias]] against their viewpoint.

==Quotes==

===CBS===
In 2006 CBS.com wrote an article on blogs <ref> [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/09/sunday/main1786520.shtml?source=search_story Brave New Blogging World]</ref> which accurately describes the conservative view of the MSM:

<blockquote> The blog format is only a couple of years old. But already, there's a tension between many bloggers and what they derisively call the MSM, the mainstream media.

"They don't believe that you are unbiased, objective, fair a lot of times. And so what they want is they want to read a lot of different sources themselves. because they don't trust the mainstream media…that would be ya'll," says Darr. </blockquote>

===CNN===
In 2006 CNN.com has an article from columnist R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. entitled "Tyrell: Goodbye MSM... and good riddance!" <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/tyrrell.msm/index.html?iref=newssearch</ref> The article talks about the [[alternative press]] vs the MSM:

<blockquote> So we hear this week that President George W. Bush is taking delight in the spread of the "alternative press" (read conservatives on the internet, in talk radio, in print, and at Fox) and the gentle detumesence of "mainstream media" (read liberal media, or more precisely, Democratic media). Well I join him in his satisfaction. </blockquote>

==References and notes==
[http://alternet.org/workplace/58108/], [http://alternet.org/mediaculture/55915/], [http://alternet.org/story/54339/]
<references/>

[[Category:Media]]
[[category:political terms]]

Mainstream media

2007-08-02T18:33:22Z

BrianRobertson: typo

==Definition==

Controversy exists over the meaning and definition of the terms '''Mainstream Media''' or '''MSM'''. Some consider the '''mainstream media''' to consist primarily of those media organs that existed in the [[United States of America]] prior to 1987, and especially any of those media organs that continue to exist today. Others take a view that the term 'mainstream', no matter the context, simply refers to 'that which is most popular'.

== Fairness Doctrine ==
In 1987, the [[Federal Communications Commission]] voted 4-0 to revoke, and cancel their enforcement of, the [[Fairness Doctrine]]. That doctrine mandated that if any opinion considered "controversial" were ever discussed on the public airwaves, the station over which that opinion aired was required to give [[equal time]] to any person wishing to reply. However, the FCC never set a standard about ''interpretations'' of current events that might be disputable, nor even examined that issue.

With the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, [[radio]] and [[television]] stations were now permitted to air any opinion or interpretation of the news, no matter how "controversial," without regard to the giving of "equal time."

On [[August 1]], [[1988]], a new radio commentator named [[Rush Limbaugh]] began [[broadcast]]ing in national [[syndication]]. The [[alternative media]] was born.

== List of mainstream media organs ==
The mainstream media are operationally considered to consist of the following organs:

* [[The New York Times]]
* [[The Washington Post]]
* [[The Boston Globe]]
* [[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]
* [[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]]
* [[The Los Angeles Times]]
* [[The San Francisco Chronicle]]
* [[USA Today]]
* The [[Wall Street Journal]]<ref>The inclusion of ''The Wall Street Journal'' might strike some media observers as strange, until one remembers that, though its editorial board is [[conservative]] on most issues (except for immigration), its [[city room]] is definitely [[liberal]] in orientation and coverage of the news.</ref>
* All major, standard-newspaper-format dailies that have existed since before the Fairness Doctrine repeal.

* [[AP|Associated Press]]
* [[UPI|United Press International]]
* [[Reuters]]

* [[CBS]]
* [[NBC]]
* [[ABC]]
* [[National Public Radio]]
* [[PBS|Public Broadcasting Service]]
* The [[CNN|Cable News Network]]
* [[Fox News]]

Some consider [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]] to not be "mainstream media", because they are frequently present a different viewpoint to many of the above news outlets. For example, the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] [[2008_Presidential_Election#Declared_Democratic_Party_Candidates|presidential candidates]] will not appear on presidential debates hosted by Fox News, but they will appear on other news outlets.

Others consider Fox News very much part of the Mainstream Media, as, according to ratings organisation Nielsen:

:* Fox News has 9 of the 10 most viewed shows on Cable TV News in Dec 2006
:* Fox News mean peaktime viewing figures are triple that of MSNBC, and double that of CNN
:* "In 2006, more than half the people watching cable news were watching Fox News" [http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_cabletv_audience.asp?cat=2&media=6]

==MSM==

Both [[Conservative]]s and [[Liberal]]s use the [[acronym]] '''MSM''' to describe the '''[[mainstream media]]''' and its apparent [[bias]] against their viewpoint.

==Quotes==

===CBS===
In 2006 CBS.com wrote an article on blogs <ref> [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/09/sunday/main1786520.shtml?source=search_story Brave New Blogging World]</ref> which accurately describes the conservative view of the MSM:

<blockquote> The blog format is only a couple of years old. But already, there's a tension between many bloggers and what they derisively call the MSM, the mainstream media.

"They don't believe that you are unbiased, objective, fair a lot of times. And so what they want is they want to read a lot of different sources themselves. because they don't trust the mainstream media…that would be ya'll," says Darr. </blockquote>

===CNN===
In 2006 CNN.com has an article from columnist R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. entitled "Tyrell: Goodbye MSM... and good riddance!" <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/tyrrell.msm/index.html?iref=newssearch</ref> The article talks about the [[alternative press]] vs the MSM:

<blockquote> So we hear this week that President George W. Bush is taking delight in the spread of the "alternative press" (read conservatives on the internet, in talk radio, in print, and at Fox) and the gentle detumesence of "mainstream media" (read liberal media, or more precisely, Democratic media). Well I join him in his satisfaction. </blockquote>

==References and notes==
[http://alternet.org/workplace/58108/], [http://alternet.org/mediaculture/55915/], [http://alternet.org/story/54339/]
<references/>

[[Category:Media]]
[[category:political terms]]

Mainstream media

2007-08-02T18:32:40Z

BrianRobertson: Add refs

==Definition==

Controversy exists over the meaning and definition of the terms '''Mainstream Media''' or '''MSM'''. Some consider the '''mainstream media''' to consist primarily of those media organs that existed in the [[United States of America]] prior to 1987, and especially any of those media organs that continue to exist today. Others take a view that the term 'mainstream', no matter the context, simply refers to 'that which is most popular'.

== Fairness Doctrine ==
In 1987, the [[Federal Communications Commission]] voted 4-0 to revoke, and cancel their enforcement of, the [[Fairness Doctrine]]. That doctrine mandated that if any opinion considered "controversial" were ever discussed on the public airwaves, the station over which that opinion aired was required to give [[equal time]] to any person wishing to reply. However, the FCC never set a standard about ''interpretations'' of current events that might be disputable, nor even examined that issue.

With the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, [[radio]] and [[television]] stations were now permitted to air any opinion or interpretation of the news, no matter how "controversial," without regard to the giving of "equal time."

On [[August 1]], [[1988]], a new radio commentator named [[Rush Limbaugh]] began [[broadcast]]ing in national [[syndication]]. The [[alternative media]] was born.

== List of mainstream media organs ==
The mainstream media are operationally considered to consist of the following organs:

* [[The New York Times]]
* [[The Washington Post]]
* [[The Boston Globe]]
* [[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]
* [[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]]
* [[The Los Angeles Times]]
* [[The San Francisco Chronicle]]
* [[USA Today]]
* The [[Wall Street Journal]]<ref>The inclusion of ''The Wall Street Journal'' might strike some media observers as strange, until one remembers that, though its editorial board is [[conservative]] on most issues (except for immigration), its [[city room]] is definitely [[liberal]] in orientation and coverage of the news.</ref>
* All major, standard-newspaper-format dailies that have existed since before the Fairness Doctrine repeal.

* [[AP|Associated Press]]
* [[UPI|United Press International]]
* [[Reuters]]

* [[CBS]]
* [[NBC]]
* [[ABC]]
* [[National Public Radio]]
* [[PBS|Public Broadcasting Service]]
* The [[CNN|Cable News Network]]
* [[Fox News]]

Some consider [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]] to not be "mainstream media", because they are frequently present a different viewpoint to many of the above news outlets. For example, the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] [[2008_Presidential_Election#Declared_Democratic_Party_Candidates|presidential candidates]] will not appear on presidential debates hosted by Fox News, but they will appear on other news outlets.

Other consider Fox News very much part of the Mainstream Media, as, according to ratings organisation Nielsen:

:* Fox News has 9 of the 10 most viewed shows on Cable TV News in Dec 2006
:* Fox News mean peaktime viewing figures are triple that of MSNBC, and double that of CNN
:* "In 2006, more than half the people watching cable news were watching Fox News" [http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_cabletv_audience.asp?cat=2&media=6]

==MSM==

Both [[Conservative]]s and [[Liberal]]s use the [[acronym]] '''MSM''' to describe the '''[[mainstream media]]''' and its apparent [[bias]] against their viewpoint.

==Quotes==

===CBS===
In 2006 CBS.com wrote an article on blogs <ref> [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/09/sunday/main1786520.shtml?source=search_story Brave New Blogging World]</ref> which accurately describes the conservative view of the MSM:

<blockquote> The blog format is only a couple of years old. But already, there's a tension between many bloggers and what they derisively call the MSM, the mainstream media.

"They don't believe that you are unbiased, objective, fair a lot of times. And so what they want is they want to read a lot of different sources themselves. because they don't trust the mainstream media…that would be ya'll," says Darr. </blockquote>

===CNN===
In 2006 CNN.com has an article from columnist R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. entitled "Tyrell: Goodbye MSM... and good riddance!" <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/tyrrell.msm/index.html?iref=newssearch</ref> The article talks about the [[alternative press]] vs the MSM:

<blockquote> So we hear this week that President George W. Bush is taking delight in the spread of the "alternative press" (read conservatives on the internet, in talk radio, in print, and at Fox) and the gentle detumesence of "mainstream media" (read liberal media, or more precisely, Democratic media). Well I join him in his satisfaction. </blockquote>

==References and notes==
[http://alternet.org/workplace/58108/], [http://alternet.org/mediaculture/55915/], [http://alternet.org/story/54339/]
<references/>

[[Category:Media]]
[[category:political terms]]

Mainstream media

2007-08-02T18:29:08Z

BrianRobertson: Remove opinion

==Definition==

Controversy exists over the meaning and definition of the terms '''Mainstream Media''' or '''MSM'''. Some consider the '''mainstream media''' to consist primarily of those media organs that existed in the [[United States of America]] prior to 1987, and especially any of those media organs that continue to exist today. Others take a view that the term 'mainstream', no matter the context, simply refers to 'that which is most popular'.

== Fairness Doctrine ==
In 1987, the [[Federal Communications Commission]] voted 4-0 to revoke, and cancel their enforcement of, the [[Fairness Doctrine]]. That doctrine mandated that if any opinion considered "controversial" were ever discussed on the public airwaves, the station over which that opinion aired was required to give [[equal time]] to any person wishing to reply. However, the FCC never set a standard about ''interpretations'' of current events that might be disputable, nor even examined that issue.

With the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, [[radio]] and [[television]] stations were now permitted to air any opinion or interpretation of the news, no matter how "controversial," without regard to the giving of "equal time."

On [[August 1]], [[1988]], a new radio commentator named [[Rush Limbaugh]] began [[broadcast]]ing in national [[syndication]]. The [[alternative media]] was born.

== List of mainstream media organs ==
The mainstream media are operationally considered to consist of the following organs:

* [[The New York Times]]
* [[The Washington Post]]
* [[The Boston Globe]]
* [[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]
* [[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]]
* [[The Los Angeles Times]]
* [[The San Francisco Chronicle]]
* [[USA Today]]
* The [[Wall Street Journal]]<ref>The inclusion of ''The Wall Street Journal'' might strike some media observers as strange, until one remembers that, though its editorial board is [[conservative]] on most issues (except for immigration), its [[city room]] is definitely [[liberal]] in orientation and coverage of the news.</ref>
* All major, standard-newspaper-format dailies that have existed since before the Fairness Doctrine repeal.

* [[AP|Associated Press]]
* [[UPI|United Press International]]
* [[Reuters]]

* [[CBS]]
* [[NBC]]
* [[ABC]]
* [[National Public Radio]]
* [[PBS|Public Broadcasting Service]]
* The [[CNN|Cable News Network]]
* [[Fox News]]

Some consider [[Fox News Channel|Fox News]] to not be "mainstream media", because they are frequently present a different viewpoint to many of the above news outlets. For example, the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] [[2008_Presidential_Election#Declared_Democratic_Party_Candidates|presidential candidates]] will not appear on presidential debates hosted by Fox News, but they will appear on other news outlets.

==MSM==

Both [[Conservative]]s and [[Liberal]]s use the [[acronym]] '''MSM''' to describe the '''[[mainstream media]]''' and its apparent [[bias]] against their viewpoint.

==Quotes==

===CBS===
In 2006 CBS.com wrote an article on blogs <ref> [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/09/sunday/main1786520.shtml?source=search_story Brave New Blogging World]</ref> which accurately describes the conservative view of the MSM:

<blockquote> The blog format is only a couple of years old. But already, there's a tension between many bloggers and what they derisively call the MSM, the mainstream media.

"They don't believe that you are unbiased, objective, fair a lot of times. And so what they want is they want to read a lot of different sources themselves. because they don't trust the mainstream media…that would be ya'll," says Darr. </blockquote>

===CNN===
In 2006 CNN.com has an article from columnist R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. entitled "Tyrell: Goodbye MSM... and good riddance!" <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/tyrrell.msm/index.html?iref=newssearch</ref> The article talks about the [[alternative press]] vs the MSM:

<blockquote> So we hear this week that President George W. Bush is taking delight in the spread of the "alternative press" (read conservatives on the internet, in talk radio, in print, and at Fox) and the gentle detumesence of "mainstream media" (read liberal media, or more precisely, Democratic media). Well I join him in his satisfaction. </blockquote>

==References and notes==
[http://alternet.org/workplace/58108/], [http://alternet.org/mediaculture/55915/], [http://alternet.org/story/54339/]
<references/>

[[Category:Media]]
[[category:political terms]]

Mainstream media

2007-08-02T18:25:47Z

BrianRobertson:

==Definition==

Controversy exists over the meaning and definition of the terms '''Mainstream Media''' or '''MSM'''. Some consider the '''mainstream media''' to consist primarily of those media organs that existed in the [[United States of America]] prior to 1987, and especially any of those media organs that continue to exist today. Others take a view that the term 'mainstream', no matter the context, simply refers to 'that which is most popular'.

== Fairness Doctrine ==
In 1987, the [[Federal Communications Commission]] voted 4-0 to revoke, and cancel their enforcement of, the [[Fairness Doctrine]]. That doctrine mandated that if any opinion considered "controversial" were ever discussed on the public airwaves, the station over which that opinion aired was required to give [[equal time]] to any person wishing to reply. However, the FCC never set a standard about ''interpretations'' of current events that might be disputable, nor even examined that issue.

With the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, [[radio]] and [[television]] stations were now permitted to air any opinion or interpretation of the news, no matter how "controversial," without regard to the giving of "equal time."

On [[August 1]], [[1988]], a new radio commentator named [[Rush Limbaugh]] began [[broadcast]]ing in national [[syndication]]. The [[alternative media]] was born.

== List of mainstream media organs ==
The mainstream media are operationally considered to consist of the following organs:

* [[The New York Times]]
* [[The Washington Post]]
* [[The Boston Globe]]
* [[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]
* [[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]]
* [[The Los Angeles Times]]
* [[The San Francisco Chronicle]]
* [[USA Today]]
* The [[Wall Street Journal]]<ref>The inclusion of ''The Wall Street Journal'' might strike some media observers as strange, until one remembers that, though its editorial board is [[conservative]] on most issues (except for immigration), its [[city room]] is definitely [[liberal]] in orientation and coverage of the news.</ref>
* All major, standard-newspaper-format dailies that have existed since before the Fairness Doctrine repeal.

* [[AP|Associated Press]]
* [[UPI|United Press International]]
* [[Reuters]]

* [[CBS]]
* [[NBC]]
* [[ABC]]
* [[National Public Radio]]
* [[PBS|Public Broadcasting Service]]
* The [[CNN|Cable News Network]]

[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]] '''is not''' "mainstream media" within this definition, because they are opposed to everything that most MSM executive and city editors stand for. One need only compare the programming decisions and editorial positions of Fox News on one hand, and the consensus of Mainstream Media organs on the other, to reach this conclusion. Also, the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] [[2008_Presidential_Election#Declared_Democratic_Party_Candidates|presidential candidates]] will not appear on presidential debates hosted by Fox News, but they will appear on all the other debates hosted by the Mainstream Media.

==MSM==

Both [[Conservative]]s and [[Liberal]]s use the [[acronym]] '''MSM''' to describe the '''[[mainstream media]]''' and its apparent [[bias]] against their viewpoint.

==Quotes==

===CBS===
In 2006 CBS.com wrote an article on blogs <ref> [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/09/sunday/main1786520.shtml?source=search_story Brave New Blogging World]</ref> which accurately describes the conservative view of the MSM:

<blockquote> The blog format is only a couple of years old. But already, there's a tension between many bloggers and what they derisively call the MSM, the mainstream media.

"They don't believe that you are unbiased, objective, fair a lot of times. And so what they want is they want to read a lot of different sources themselves. because they don't trust the mainstream media…that would be ya'll," says Darr. </blockquote>

===CNN===
In 2006 CNN.com has an article from columnist R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. entitled "Tyrell: Goodbye MSM... and good riddance!" <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/tyrrell.msm/index.html?iref=newssearch</ref> The article talks about the [[alternative press]] vs the MSM:

<blockquote> So we hear this week that President George W. Bush is taking delight in the spread of the "alternative press" (read conservatives on the internet, in talk radio, in print, and at Fox) and the gentle detumesence of "mainstream media" (read liberal media, or more precisely, Democratic media). Well I join him in his satisfaction. </blockquote>

==References and notes==
[http://alternet.org/workplace/58108/], [http://alternet.org/mediaculture/55915/], [http://alternet.org/story/54339/]
<references/>

[[Category:Media]]
[[category:political terms]]

Mainstream media

2007-08-02T18:25:13Z

BrianRobertson:

==Definition==

Controversy exists over the meaning and definition of the terms '''Mainstream Media''' or '''MSM'''. Some consider the '''mainstream media''' to consist primarily of those media organs that existed in the [[United States of America]] prior to 1987, and especially any of those media organs that continue to exist today. Others take a view that the term 'mainstream', no matter the context, simply refers to 'that which is most popular'.

== Background of the definition ==
In 1987, the [[Federal Communications Commission]] voted 4-0 to revoke, and cancel their enforcement of, the [[Fairness Doctrine]]. That doctrine mandated that if any opinion considered "controversial" were ever discussed on the public airwaves, the station over which that opinion aired was required to give [[equal time]] to any person wishing to reply. However, the FCC never set a standard about ''interpretations'' of current events that might be disputable, nor even examined that issue.

With the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, [[radio]] and [[television]] stations were now permitted to air any opinion or interpretation of the news, no matter how "controversial," without regard to the giving of "equal time."

On [[August 1]], [[1988]], a new radio commentator named [[Rush Limbaugh]] began [[broadcast]]ing in national [[syndication]]. The [[alternative media]] was born.

== List of mainstream media organs ==
The mainstream media are operationally considered to consist of the following organs:

* [[The New York Times]]
* [[The Washington Post]]
* [[The Boston Globe]]
* [[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]
* [[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]]
* [[The Los Angeles Times]]
* [[The San Francisco Chronicle]]
* [[USA Today]]
* The [[Wall Street Journal]]<ref>The inclusion of ''The Wall Street Journal'' might strike some media observers as strange, until one remembers that, though its editorial board is [[conservative]] on most issues (except for immigration), its [[city room]] is definitely [[liberal]] in orientation and coverage of the news.</ref>
* All major, standard-newspaper-format dailies that have existed since before the Fairness Doctrine repeal.

* [[AP|Associated Press]]
* [[UPI|United Press International]]
* [[Reuters]]

* [[CBS]]
* [[NBC]]
* [[ABC]]
* [[National Public Radio]]
* [[PBS|Public Broadcasting Service]]
* The [[CNN|Cable News Network]]

[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]] '''is not''' "mainstream media" within this definition, because they are opposed to everything that most MSM executive and city editors stand for. One need only compare the programming decisions and editorial positions of Fox News on one hand, and the consensus of Mainstream Media organs on the other, to reach this conclusion. Also, the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] [[2008_Presidential_Election#Declared_Democratic_Party_Candidates|presidential candidates]] will not appear on presidential debates hosted by Fox News, but they will appear on all the other debates hosted by the Mainstream Media.

==MSM==

Both [[Conservative]]s and [[Liberal]]s use the [[acronym]] '''MSM''' to describe the '''[[mainstream media]]''' and its apparent [[bias]] against their viewpoint.

==Quotes==

===CBS===
In 2006 CBS.com wrote an article on blogs <ref> [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/09/sunday/main1786520.shtml?source=search_story Brave New Blogging World]</ref> which accurately describes the conservative view of the MSM:

<blockquote> The blog format is only a couple of years old. But already, there's a tension between many bloggers and what they derisively call the MSM, the mainstream media.

"They don't believe that you are unbiased, objective, fair a lot of times. And so what they want is they want to read a lot of different sources themselves. because they don't trust the mainstream media…that would be ya'll," says Darr. </blockquote>

===CNN===
In 2006 CNN.com has an article from columnist R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. entitled "Tyrell: Goodbye MSM... and good riddance!" <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/tyrrell.msm/index.html?iref=newssearch</ref> The article talks about the [[alternative press]] vs the MSM:

<blockquote> So we hear this week that President George W. Bush is taking delight in the spread of the "alternative press" (read conservatives on the internet, in talk radio, in print, and at Fox) and the gentle detumesence of "mainstream media" (read liberal media, or more precisely, Democratic media). Well I join him in his satisfaction. </blockquote>

==References and notes==
[http://alternet.org/workplace/58108/], [http://alternet.org/mediaculture/55915/], [http://alternet.org/story/54339/]
<references/>

[[Category:Media]]
[[category:political terms]]

Talk:Mainstream media

2007-08-02T18:22:05Z

BrianRobertson: tidying

Talk:Mainstream media

2007-08-02T18:21:18Z

BrianRobertson: tidying

Mainstream media

2007-08-02T18:20:20Z

BrianRobertson:

Some consider the '''mainstream media''' to consist primarily of those media organs that existed in the [[United States of America]] prior to 1987, and especially any of those media organs that continue to exist today.

== Background of the definition ==
In 1987, the [[Federal Communications Commission]] voted 4-0 to revoke, and cancel their enforcement of, the [[Fairness Doctrine]]. That doctrine mandated that if any opinion considered "controversial" were ever discussed on the public airwaves, the station over which that opinion aired was required to give [[equal time]] to any person wishing to reply. However, the FCC never set a standard about ''interpretations'' of current events that might be disputable, nor even examined that issue.

With the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, [[radio]] and [[television]] stations were now permitted to air any opinion or interpretation of the news, no matter how "controversial," without regard to the giving of "equal time."

On [[August 1]], [[1988]], a new radio commentator named [[Rush Limbaugh]] began [[broadcast]]ing in national [[syndication]]. The [[alternative media]] was born.

== List of mainstream media organs ==
The mainstream media are operationally considered to consist of the following organs:

* [[The New York Times]]
* [[The Washington Post]]
* [[The Boston Globe]]
* [[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]
* [[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]]
* [[The Los Angeles Times]]
* [[The San Francisco Chronicle]]
* [[USA Today]]
* The [[Wall Street Journal]]<ref>The inclusion of ''The Wall Street Journal'' might strike some media observers as strange, until one remembers that, though its editorial board is [[conservative]] on most issues (except for immigration), its [[city room]] is definitely [[liberal]] in orientation and coverage of the news.</ref>
* All major, standard-newspaper-format dailies that have existed since before the Fairness Doctrine repeal.

* [[AP|Associated Press]]
* [[UPI|United Press International]]
* [[Reuters]]

* [[CBS]]
* [[NBC]]
* [[ABC]]
* [[National Public Radio]]
* [[PBS|Public Broadcasting Service]]
* The [[CNN|Cable News Network]]

[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]] '''is not''' "mainstream media" within this definition, because they are opposed to everything that most MSM executive and city editors stand for. One need only compare the programming decisions and editorial positions of Fox News on one hand, and the consensus of Mainstream Media organs on the other, to reach this conclusion. Also, the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] [[2008_Presidential_Election#Declared_Democratic_Party_Candidates|presidential candidates]] will not appear on presidential debates hosted by Fox News, but they will appear on all the other debates hosted by the Mainstream Media.

==MSM==

Both [[Conservative]]s and [[Liberal]]s use the [[acronym]] '''MSM''' to describe the '''[[mainstream media]]''' and its apparent [[bias]] against their viewpoint.

==Quotes==

===CBS===
In 2006 CBS.com wrote an article on blogs <ref> [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/09/sunday/main1786520.shtml?source=search_story Brave New Blogging World]</ref> which accurately describes the conservative view of the MSM:

<blockquote> The blog format is only a couple of years old. But already, there's a tension between many bloggers and what they derisively call the MSM, the mainstream media.

"They don't believe that you are unbiased, objective, fair a lot of times. And so what they want is they want to read a lot of different sources themselves. because they don't trust the mainstream media…that would be ya'll," says Darr. </blockquote>

===CNN===
In 2006 CNN.com has an article from columnist R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. entitled "Tyrell: Goodbye MSM... and good riddance!" <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/tyrrell.msm/index.html?iref=newssearch</ref> The article talks about the [[alternative press]] vs the MSM:

<blockquote> So we hear this week that President George W. Bush is taking delight in the spread of the "alternative press" (read conservatives on the internet, in talk radio, in print, and at Fox) and the gentle detumesence of "mainstream media" (read liberal media, or more precisely, Democratic media). Well I join him in his satisfaction. </blockquote>

==References and notes==
[http://alternet.org/workplace/58108/], [http://alternet.org/mediaculture/55915/], [http://alternet.org/story/54339/]
<references/>

[[Category:Media]]
[[category:political terms]]

Mainstream media

2007-08-02T18:15:10Z

BrianRobertson:

Some consider the '''mainstream media''' to consist primarily of those media organs that existed in the [[United States of America]] prior to 1987, and especially any of those media organs that continue to exist today.

== Background of the definition ==
In 1987, the [[Federal Communications Commission]] voted 4-0 to revoke, and cancel their enforcement of, the [[Fairness Doctrine]]. That doctrine mandated that if any opinion considered "controversial" were ever discussed on the public airwaves, the station over which that opinion aired was required to give [[equal time]] to any person wishing to reply. However, the FCC never set a standard about ''interpretations'' of current events that might be disputable, nor even examined that issue.

With the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, [[radio]] and [[television]] stations were now permitted to air any opinion or interpretation of the news, no matter how "controversial," without regard to the giving of "equal time."

On [[August 1]], [[1988]], a new radio commentator named [[Rush Limbaugh]] began [[broadcast]]ing in national [[syndication]]. The [[alternative media]] was born.

== List of mainstream media organs ==
The mainstream media are operationally considered to consist of the following organs:

* [[The New York Times]]
* [[The Washington Post]]
* [[The Boston Globe]]
* [[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]
* [[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]]
* [[The Los Angeles Times]]
* [[The San Francisco Chronicle]]
* [[USA Today]]
* The [[Wall Street Journal]]<ref>The inclusion of ''The Wall Street Journal'' might strike some media observers as strange, until one remembers that, though its editorial board is [[conservative]] on most issues (except for immigration), its [[city room]] is definitely [[liberal]] in orientation and coverage of the news.</ref>
* All major, standard-newspaper-format dailies that have existed since before the Fairness Doctrine repeal.

* [[AP|Associated Press]]
* [[UPI|United Press International]]
* [[Reuters]]

* [[CBS]]
* [[NBC]]
* [[ABC]]
* [[National Public Radio]]
* [[PBS|Public Broadcasting Service]]
* The [[CNN|Cable News Network]]

[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]] '''is not''' "mainstream media" within this definition, because they are opposed to everything that most MSM executive and city editors stand for. One need only compare the programming decisions and editorial positions of Fox News on one hand, and the consensus of Mainstream Media organs on the other, to reach this conclusion. Also, the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] [[2008_Presidential_Election#Declared_Democratic_Party_Candidates|presidential candidates]] will not appear on presidential debates hosted by Fox News, but they will appear on all the other debates hosted by the Mainstream Media.

==MSM==

Both [[Conservative]]s and [[Liberal]]s use the [[acronym]] '''MSM''' to describe the '''[[mainstream media]]''' and its apparent [[bias]] against their viewpoint.

==Mainstream Media==

===CBS===
In 2006 CBS.com wrote an article on blogs <ref> [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/09/sunday/main1786520.shtml?source=search_story Brave New Blogging World]</ref> which accurately describes the conservative view of the MSM:

<blockquote> The blog format is only a couple of years old. But already, there's a tension between many bloggers and what they derisively call the MSM, the mainstream media.

"They don't believe that you are unbiased, objective, fair a lot of times. And so what they want is they want to read a lot of different sources themselves. because they don't trust the mainstream media…that would be ya'll," says Darr. </blockquote>

===CNN===
In 2006 CNN.com has an article from columnist R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. entitled "Tyrell: Goodbye MSM... and good riddance!" <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/tyrrell.msm/index.html?iref=newssearch</ref> The article talks about the [[alternative press]] vs the MSM:

<blockquote> So we hear this week that President George W. Bush is taking delight in the spread of the "alternative press" (read conservatives on the internet, in talk radio, in print, and at Fox) and the gentle detumesence of "mainstream media" (read liberal media, or more precisely, Democratic media). Well I join him in his satisfaction. </blockquote>

==References and notes==
[http://alternet.org/workplace/58108/], [http://alternet.org/mediaculture/55915/], [http://alternet.org/story/54339/]
<references/>

[[Category:Media]]
[[category:political terms]]

Talk:Mainstream media

2007-08-02T17:47:38Z

BrianRobertson: /* Alleged bias of Fox News */

What does the discussion of Wikiepdia here have to do with anything? I'm confused. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:12, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:I removed that bit. Seems to be a mark of an unhealthy obession with Wikipedia. If it's supposed to illustrate some sort of bias (which isn't readily apparent), explain it and put it on the Bias in Wikipedia page. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 22:57, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Do liberals really use the initials MSM to allege conservative bias in the media? ==

I don't see that. What I ''do'' see is most [[liberal]]s denying that the MSM have any bias at all. If anyone is accusing the MSM of having a conservative bias, it is usually those who are even further to the left--like the Daily Kos.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:18, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, they do. All sides of the political spectrum tend to feel that their views are not properly represented in the 'mainstream media', and given the fact that Fox News' viewing figures are now greater than CNN's, there's no denying - whatever one's views - that there are widely-aired viewpoints that do not concur with a liberal agenda. Most liberals would definitely feel that the 'MSM' is quite far to the right. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 21:24, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Well, I'll tell you what: why don't you go dig up a survey of people who describe themselves as liberal. Seems to me as though you're counting the voices of liberal politicians, editors, anchors, ''et cetera''.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:Alternet, a liberal news site, has some good refs that you can check: [http://alternet.org/workplace/58108/], [http://alternet.org/mediaculture/55915/], [http://alternet.org/story/54339/]

Oh, and one more thing: Don't tell me that Fox News is part of the MSM. It's not, they never pretend to be, and indeed they are proud to say that they are not.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:32, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: According to Nielsen:
:* Fox News has 9 of the 10 most viewed shows on Cable TV News in Dec 2006
:* Fox News mean peaktime viewing figures are triple that of MSNBC, and double that of CNN
:* "In 2006, more than half the people watching cable news were watching Fox News (as they have since 2001)."[http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_cabletv_audience.asp?cat=2&media=6]

:That sounds like the very definition of mainstream to me, no? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 22:12, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

I could've swore that MSM-status was decided by how mainstream something was, not whether or not it claimed to be mainstream... [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:35, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:Why don't you bring me a citation to that effect? What you did in fact swear (and in what forum?), or could or could not have sworn, is of no moment here.
:Never have I seen a definition of "mainstream media" based on numbers of patrons only. Take care: by your definition, Fox would be comfortably mainstream while [[CNN]] stood in danger of losing that status--along with [[The New York Times]], which is losing circulation with every passing year, if not every passing month.
:But you know, or should know, that that's not how it works. Why do you think that [[United States Senate|Senator]] [[Diane Feinstein]] wants to reinstitute the [[Fairness Doctrine]]? It's because she wants to rid the earth of the [[alternative media]] and leave only the [[mainstream media]] as I have defined and listed it in this article.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:: [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Mainstream How's this?] Not entirely sure what's up with the sentence after you asking for a citation, but in any case...
:: I'm shaking in fear of the you thinking the New York Times isn't mainstream. Absolutely terrified.
:: And finally: I wasn't aware that the US' policies affected the entire Earth... [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
:::The dictionary definition you gave, will serve at best for an [[etymology]] of the phrase ''mainstream media'' and not for a corrective to the common use of the term. Names stick, and often for reasons that no lexicographer would predict or can even understand after the fact.
:::Do you deny that ''[[The New York Times]]'' is losing circulation? See what I mean by defining ''mainstream media'' according to present circulation?
:::And as to US policies affecting the entire [[Earth]]--well, don't they? Does not the [[United States]] have the most powerful military of any nation-state now extant? As to "rid the earth": that kind of expression goes back to Roman times. For example:
{{Bible quote|Then they raised their voices and shouted, "Rid the earth of him! He's not fit to live!"|book=Acts|chap=22|verses=22|version=NIV}}--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:39, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives feel that everyone in the television MSM ''except'' Fox News has a liberal bias. That means ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. So the liberals think one station (Fox News) is conservative. That's leaves ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN with a liberal bias. It doesn't make sense for liberals to think that the 'MSM' is quite far to the right. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:That's wrong too - the more liberal or left-leaning, the more they feel that ALL channels and outlets are MSM. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 22:16, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

It's also used in any case where ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN understate something that Liberals feel to be a big issue, or taking the Administration's side just to be safe. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:39, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Should probably clarify- It's not shouted from the rooftops as much by Libs as by Cons. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Actually this idea of liberals using the MSM to mean conservative bias wouldn't be that surprising. They like to use our words and turn them into their liberal meaning. Like "gay" and "rainbow". --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:51, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, how dare they make rainbow mean "... optical and meteorological phenomena that cause a spectrum of light to appear in the sky when the Sun shines onto droplets of moisture in the Earth's atmosphere." Before, it was just "PRETTY THING FROM GOD!" And so it should always be. And that's, that's the way I feel about it! [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

==Alternative Press==

I think it is confusing to use the term 'alternative press' in this context, as generally, the left-wing/freesheet/liberal press also call themselves the 'alternative press'. For ref, see Alternet as I've linked to above. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 12:34, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

== Alleged bias of [[Fox News]] ==

I direct this to User Kazumaru, who questions my definition of Mainstream Media.

First, who does, and who does not, constitute Mainstream Media is strictly an historical definition only. It has nothing to do with popularity or share of viewership, audience, readership, or what have you. The key to the definition, as I have written, is the [[Fairness Doctrine]] and its repeal in 1987.

Second, ''if'' [[Fox News]] has a bias, then it is a bias in favor of describing the world as it actually exists, not the world that [[Katherine Graham]]'s A-list cocktail-party circuit wanted described while she was alive--and still do, even though she is no longer around to direct it.

Ask yourself, if you are willing to be intellectually honest: why did all the organs I named, say exactly the same thing, almost in the same words, about any event? How often did these organs disagree with one another?

I repeat: [[Fox News]] is not mainstream, never was, never will be, and clearly does not want to be.

I think you're problem is that [[Fox News]] is permitted to continue to exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:01, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: "who does, and who does not, constitute Mainstream Media is strictly an historical definition only". Can you support this with refs? The word mainstream and alternative simply describe majority and minority audience appeal. Since all (both?) sides of the political spectrum use both terms to describe their antagonists, it's obvious that MSM at best describes the most widely viewed or recognised outlets. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 13:47, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Terry, do you think we could come to an agreement to merge this article and the [[MSM]] article, and their talk pages? As the latter is merely an acronym of the former, it might help clarify the debate if the dialogue was at least all brought into one place? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 12:31, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Brian; the two articles/talk pages should be merged into the Mainstream media article. After the merge, MSM should be a redirect. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

I merged the article and talk pages. The result needs work, please help. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 13:47, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Mainstream media

2007-08-02T17:32:02Z

BrianRobertson: I Invite help with streamlining and editing this merge

The '''mainstream media''' consist primarily of those media organs that existed in the [[United States of America]] prior to 1987, and especially any of those media organs that continue to exist today.

== Background of the definition ==
In 1987, the [[Federal Communications Commission]] voted 4-0 to revoke, and cancel their enforcement of, the [[Fairness Doctrine]]. That doctrine mandated that if any opinion considered "controversial" were ever discussed on the public airwaves, the station over which that opinion aired was required to give [[equal time]] to any person wishing to reply. However, the FCC never set a standard about ''interpretations'' of current events that might be disputable, nor even examined that issue.

With the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, [[radio]] and [[television]] stations were now permitted to air any opinion or interpretation of the news, no matter how "controversial," without regard to the giving of "equal time."

On [[August 1]], [[1988]], a new radio commentator named [[Rush Limbaugh]] began [[broadcast]]ing in national [[syndication]]. The [[alternative media]] was born.

== List of mainstream media organs ==
The mainstream media are operationally considered to consist of the following organs:

* [[The New York Times]]
* [[The Washington Post]]
* [[The Boston Globe]]
* [[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]
* [[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]]
* [[The Los Angeles Times]]
* [[The San Francisco Chronicle]]
* [[USA Today]]
* The [[Wall Street Journal]]<ref>The inclusion of ''The Wall Street Journal'' might strike some media observers as strange, until one remembers that, though its editorial board is [[conservative]] on most issues (except for immigration), its [[city room]] is definitely [[liberal]] in orientation and coverage of the news.</ref>
* All major, standard-newspaper-format dailies that have existed since before the Fairness Doctrine repeal.

* [[AP|Associated Press]]
* [[UPI|United Press International]]
* [[Reuters]]

* [[CBS]]
* [[NBC]]
* [[ABC]]
* [[National Public Radio]]
* [[PBS|Public Broadcasting Service]]
* The [[CNN|Cable News Network]]

[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]] '''is not''' "mainstream media" within this definition, because they are opposed to everything that most MSM executive and city editors stand for. One need only compare the programming decisions and editorial positions of Fox News on one hand, and the consensus of Mainstream Media organs on the other, to reach this conclusion. Also, the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] [[2008_Presidential_Election#Declared_Democratic_Party_Candidates|presidential candidates]] will not appear on presidential debates hosted by Fox News, but they will appear on all the other debates hosted by the Mainstream Media.

==MSM==

Both [[Conservative]]s and [[Liberal]]s use the [[acronym]] '''MSM''' to describe the '''[[mainstream media]]''' and its apparent [[bias]] against their viewpoint.

==Mainstream Media==
===CBS===
In 2006 CBS.com wrote an article on blogs <ref> [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/09/sunday/main1786520.shtml?source=search_story Brave New Blogging World]</ref> which accurately describes the conservative view of the MSM:

<blockquote> The blog format is only a couple of years old. But already, there's a tension between many bloggers and what they derisively call the MSM, the mainstream media.

"They don't believe that you are unbiased, objective, fair a lot of times. And so what they want is they want to read a lot of different sources themselves. because they don't trust the mainstream media…that would be ya'll," says Darr. </blockquote>

===CNN===
In 2006 CNN.com has an article from columnist R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. entitled "Tyrell: Goodbye MSM... and good riddance!" <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/tyrrell.msm/index.html?iref=newssearch</ref> The article talks about the [[alternative press]] vs the MSM:

<blockquote> So we hear this week that President George W. Bush is taking delight in the spread of the "alternative press" (read conservatives on the internet, in talk radio, in print, and at Fox) and the gentle detumesence of "mainstream media" (read liberal media, or more precisely, Democratic media). Well I join him in his satisfaction. </blockquote>

==References and notes==
[http://alternet.org/workplace/58108/], [http://alternet.org/mediaculture/55915/], [http://alternet.org/story/54339/]
<references/>

[[Category:Media]]
[[category:political terms]]

User talk:BrianRobertson

2007-08-02T17:29:45Z

BrianRobertson: thanks Niandra!

MSM

2007-08-02T17:27:03Z

BrianRobertson: fix redirect

#redirect [[Mainstream media]]

MSM

2007-08-02T17:25:02Z

BrianRobertson: redirect

#redirect [[Mainstream Media]]

Talk:Mainstream media

2007-08-02T17:24:01Z

BrianRobertson: moving.....

What does the discussion of Wikiepdia here have to do with anything? I'm confused. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 16:12, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:I removed that bit. Seems to be a mark of an unhealthy obession with Wikipedia. If it's supposed to illustrate some sort of bias (which isn't readily apparent), explain it and put it on the Bias in Wikipedia page. [[User:PortlyMort|PortlyMort]] 22:57, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

== Do liberals really use the initials MSM to allege conservative bias in the media? ==

I don't see that. What I ''do'' see is most [[liberal]]s denying that the MSM have any bias at all. If anyone is accusing the MSM of having a conservative bias, it is usually those who are even further to the left--like the Daily Kos.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:18, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, they do. All sides of the political spectrum tend to feel that their views are not properly represented in the 'mainstream media', and given the fact that Fox News' viewing figures are now greater than CNN's, there's no denying - whatever one's views - that there are widely-aired viewpoints that do not concur with a liberal agenda. Most liberals would definitely feel that the 'MSM' is quite far to the right. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 21:24, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Well, I'll tell you what: why don't you go dig up a survey of people who describe themselves as liberal. Seems to me as though you're counting the voices of liberal politicians, editors, anchors, ''et cetera''.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:Alternet, a liberal news site, has some good refs that you can check: [http://alternet.org/workplace/58108/], [http://alternet.org/mediaculture/55915/], [http://alternet.org/story/54339/]

Oh, and one more thing: Don't tell me that Fox News is part of the MSM. It's not, they never pretend to be, and indeed they are proud to say that they are not.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 21:32, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

: According to Nielsen:
:* Fox News has 9 of the 10 most viewed shows on Cable TV News in Dec 2006
:* Fox News mean peaktime viewing figures are triple that of MSNBC, and double that of CNN
:* "In 2006, more than half the people watching cable news were watching Fox News (as they have since 2001)."[http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2007/narrative_cabletv_audience.asp?cat=2&media=6]

:That sounds like the very definition of mainstream to me, no? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 22:12, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

I could've swore that MSM-status was decided by how mainstream something was, not whether or not it claimed to be mainstream... [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:35, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:Why don't you bring me a citation to that effect? What you did in fact swear (and in what forum?), or could or could not have sworn, is of no moment here.
:Never have I seen a definition of "mainstream media" based on numbers of patrons only. Take care: by your definition, Fox would be comfortably mainstream while [[CNN]] stood in danger of losing that status--along with [[The New York Times]], which is losing circulation with every passing year, if not every passing month.
:But you know, or should know, that that's not how it works. Why do you think that [[United States Senate|Senator]] [[Diane Feinstein]] wants to reinstitute the [[Fairness Doctrine]]? It's because she wants to rid the earth of the [[alternative media]] and leave only the [[mainstream media]] as I have defined and listed it in this article.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:: [http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Mainstream How's this?] Not entirely sure what's up with the sentence after you asking for a citation, but in any case...
:: I'm shaking in fear of the you thinking the New York Times isn't mainstream. Absolutely terrified.
:: And finally: I wasn't aware that the US' policies affected the entire Earth... [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:10, 2 August 2007 (EDT)
:::The dictionary definition you gave, will serve at best for an [[etymology]] of the phrase ''mainstream media'' and not for a corrective to the common use of the term. Names stick, and often for reasons that no lexicographer would predict or can even understand after the fact.
:::Do you deny that ''[[The New York Times]]'' is losing circulation? See what I mean by defining ''mainstream media'' according to present circulation?
:::And as to US policies affecting the entire [[Earth]]--well, don't they? Does not the [[United States]] have the most powerful military of any nation-state now extant? As to "rid the earth": that kind of expression goes back to Roman times. For example:
{{Bible quote|Then they raised their voices and shouted, "Rid the earth of him! He's not fit to live!"|book=Acts|chap=22|verses=22|version=NIV}}--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 09:39, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Conservatives feel that everyone in the television MSM ''except'' Fox News has a liberal bias. That means ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN. So the liberals think one station (Fox News) is conservative. That's leaves ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN with a liberal bias. It doesn't make sense for liberals to think that the 'MSM' is quite far to the right. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:37, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

:That's wrong too - the more liberal or left-leaning, the more they feel that ALL channels and outlets are MSM. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 22:16, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

It's also used in any case where ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN understate something that Liberals feel to be a big issue, or taking the Administration's side just to be safe. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:39, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Should probably clarify- It's not shouted from the rooftops as much by Libs as by Cons. [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Actually this idea of liberals using the MSM to mean conservative bias wouldn't be that surprising. They like to use our words and turn them into their liberal meaning. Like "gay" and "rainbow". --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 21:51, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, how dare they make rainbow mean "... optical and meteorological phenomena that cause a spectrum of light to appear in the sky when the Sun shines onto droplets of moisture in the Earth's atmosphere." Before, it was just "PRETTY THING FROM GOD!" And so it should always be. And that's, that's the way I feel about it! [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 21:59, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

==Alternative Press==

I think it is confusing to use the term 'alternative press' in this context, as generally, the left-wing/freesheet/liberal press also call themselves the 'alternative press'. For ref, see Alternet as I've linked to above. [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 12:34, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

== Alleged bias of [[Fox News]] ==

I direct this to User Kazumaru, who questions my definition of Mainstream Media.

First, who does, and who does not, constitute Mainstream Media is strictly an historical definition only. It has nothing to do with popularity or share of viewership, audience, readership, or what have you. The key to the definition, as I have written, is the [[Fairness Doctrine]] and its repeal in 1987.

Second, ''if'' [[Fox News]] has a bias, then it is a bias in favor of describing the world as it actually exists, not the world that [[Katherine Graham]]'s A-list cocktail-party circuit wanted described while she was alive--and still do, even though she is no longer around to direct it.

Ask yourself, if you are willing to be intellectually honest: why did all the organs I named, say exactly the same thing, almost in the same words, about any event? How often did these organs disagree with one another?

I repeat: [[Fox News]] is not mainstream, never was, never will be, and clearly does not want to be.

I think you're problem is that [[Fox News]] is permitted to continue to exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:01, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Terry, do you think we could come to an agreement to merge this article and the [[MSM]] article, and their talk pages? As the latter is merely an acronym of the former, it might help clarify the debate if the dialogue was at least all brought into one place? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 12:31, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Brian; the two articles/talk pages should be merged into the Mainstream media article. After the merge, MSM should be a redirect. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:06, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

Mainstream media

2007-08-02T17:23:01Z

BrianRobertson: moving.....

The '''mainstream media''' consist primarily of those media organs that existed in the [[United States of America]] prior to 1987, and especially any of those media organs that continue to exist today.

== Background of the definition ==
In 1987, the [[Federal Communications Commission]] voted 4-0 to revoke, and cancel their enforcement of, the [[Fairness Doctrine]]. That doctrine mandated that if any opinion considered "controversial" were ever discussed on the public airwaves, the station over which that opinion aired was required to give [[equal time]] to any person wishing to reply. However, the FCC never set a standard about ''interpretations'' of current events that might be disputable, nor even examined that issue.

With the revocation of the Fairness Doctrine, [[radio]] and [[television]] stations were now permitted to air any opinion or interpretation of the news, no matter how "controversial," without regard to the giving of "equal time."

On [[August 1]], [[1988]], a new radio commentator named [[Rush Limbaugh]] began [[broadcast]]ing in national [[syndication]]. The [[alternative media]] was born.

== List of mainstream media organs ==
The mainstream media are operationally considered to consist of the following organs:

* [[The New York Times]]
* [[The Washington Post]]
* [[The Boston Globe]]
* [[The Philadelphia Inquirer]]
* [[The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]]
* [[The Los Angeles Times]]
* [[The San Francisco Chronicle]]
* [[USA Today]]
* The [[Wall Street Journal]]<ref>The inclusion of ''The Wall Street Journal'' might strike some media observers as strange, until one remembers that, though its editorial board is [[conservative]] on most issues (except for immigration), its [[city room]] is definitely [[liberal]] in orientation and coverage of the news.</ref>
* All major, standard-newspaper-format dailies that have existed since before the Fairness Doctrine repeal.

* [[AP|Associated Press]]
* [[UPI|United Press International]]
* [[Reuters]]

* [[CBS]]
* [[NBC]]
* [[ABC]]
* [[National Public Radio]]
* [[PBS|Public Broadcasting Service]]
* The [[CNN|Cable News Network]]

[[Fox News Channel|Fox News]] '''is not''' "mainstream media" within this definition, because they are opposed to everything that most MSM executive and city editors stand for. One need only compare the programming decisions and editorial positions of Fox News on one hand, and the consensus of Mainstream Media organs on the other, to reach this conclusion. Also, the [[Democratic Party|Democratic]] [[2008_Presidential_Election#Declared_Democratic_Party_Candidates|presidential candidates]] will not appear on presidential debates hosted by Fox News, but they will appear on all the other debates hosted by the Mainstream Media.

==MSM==

Both [[Conservative]]s and [[Liberals]] use the [[acronym]] '''MSM''' to describe the '''[[mainstream media]]''' and its apparent [[bias]] against their viewpoint.

==Mainstream Media==
===CBS===
In 2006 CBS.com wrote an article on blogs <ref> [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/09/sunday/main1786520.shtml?source=search_story Brave New Blogging World]</ref> which accurately describes the conservative view of the MSM:

<blockquote> The blog format is only a couple of years old. But already, there's a tension between many bloggers and what they derisively call the MSM, the mainstream media.

"They don't believe that you are unbiased, objective, fair a lot of times. And so what they want is they want to read a lot of different sources themselves. because they don't trust the mainstream media…that would be ya'll," says Darr. </blockquote>

===CNN===
In 2006 CNN.com has an article from columnist R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. entitled "Tyrell: Goodbye MSM... and good riddance!" <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/tyrrell.msm/index.html?iref=newssearch</ref> The article talks about the [[alternative press]] vs the MSM:

<blockquote> So we hear this week that President George W. Bush is taking delight in the spread of the "alternative press" (read conservatives on the internet, in talk radio, in print, and at Fox) and the gentle detumesence of "mainstream media" (read liberal media, or more precisely, Democratic media). Well I join him in his satisfaction. </blockquote>

==References and notes==
[http://alternet.org/workplace/58108/], [http://alternet.org/mediaculture/55915/], [http://alternet.org/story/54339/]
<references/>

[[Category:Media]]
[[category:political terms]]

Talk:MSM

2007-08-02T16:34:52Z

BrianRobertson: Alternative Press is also used by both sides

Talk:Mainstream media

2007-08-02T16:31:25Z

BrianRobertson: Merge MSM and Mainstream Media articles?

== Alleged bias of [[Fox News]] ==

I direct this to User Kazumaru, who questions my definition of Mainstream Media.

First, who does, and who does not, constitute Mainstream Media is strictly an historical definition only. It has nothing to do with popularity or share of viewership, audience, readership, or what have you. The key to the definition, as I have written, is the [[Fairness Doctrine]] and its repeal in 1987.

Second, ''if'' [[Fox News]] has a bias, then it is a bias in favor of describing the world as it actually exists, not the world that [[Katherine Graham]]'s A-list cocktail-party circuit wanted described while she was alive--and still do, even though she is no longer around to direct it.

Ask yourself, if you are willing to be intellectually honest: why did all the organs I named, say exactly the same thing, almost in the same words, about any event? How often did these organs disagree with one another?

I repeat: [[Fox News]] is not mainstream, never was, never will be, and clearly does not want to be.

I think you're problem is that [[Fox News]] is permitted to continue to exist.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]][[User talk:TerryH|Talk]] 23:01, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Terry, do you think we could come to an agreement to merge this article and the [[MSM]] article, and their talk pages? As the latter is merely an acronym of the former, it might help clarify the debate if the dialogue was at least all brought into one place? [[User:BrianRobertson|BrianRobertson]] 12:31, 2 August 2007 (EDT)

MSM

2007-08-02T16:28:00Z

BrianRobertson: refs

Both [[Conservative]]s and [[Liberals]] use the [[acronym]] '''MSM''' to describe the '''[[mainstream media]]''' and its apparent [[bias]] against their viewpoint.

==Mainstream Media==
===CBS===
In 2006 CBS.com wrote an article on blogs <ref> [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/09/sunday/main1786520.shtml?source=search_story Brave New Blogging World]</ref> which accurately describes the conservative view of the MSM:

<blockquote> The blog format is only a couple of years old. But already, there's a tension between many bloggers and what they derisively call the MSM, the mainstream media.

"They don't believe that you are unbiased, objective, fair a lot of times. And so what they want is they want to read a lot of different sources themselves. because they don't trust the mainstream media…that would be ya'll," says Darr. </blockquote>

===CNN===
In 2006 CNN.com has an article from columnist R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. entitled "Tyrell: Goodbye MSM... and good riddance!" <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/tyrrell.msm/index.html?iref=newssearch</ref> The article talks about the [[alternative press]] vs the MSM:

<blockquote> So we hear this week that President George W. Bush is taking delight in the spread of the "alternative press" (read conservatives on the internet, in talk radio, in print, and at Fox) and the gentle detumesence of "mainstream media" (read liberal media, or more precisely, Democratic media). Well I join him in his satisfaction. </blockquote>

==References==
[http://alternet.org/workplace/58108/], [http://alternet.org/mediaculture/55915/], [http://alternet.org/story/54339/]

<references/>

[[category:media]]
[[category:political terms]]

MSM

2007-08-02T16:27:10Z

BrianRobertson: I think we've established that both sides of the debate use the term, so this for clarity through simplification.

Both [[Conservative]]s and [[Liberals]] use the [[acronym]] '''MSM''' to describe the '''[[mainstream media]]''' and its apparent [[bias]] against their viewpoint.

==Mainstream Media==
===CBS===
In 2006 CBS.com wrote an article on blogs <ref> [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/09/sunday/main1786520.shtml?source=search_story Brave New Blogging World]</ref> which accurately describes the conservative view of the MSM:

<blockquote> The blog format is only a couple of years old. But already, there's a tension between many bloggers and what they derisively call the MSM, the mainstream media.

"They don't believe that you are unbiased, objective, fair a lot of times. And so what they want is they want to read a lot of different sources themselves. because they don't trust the mainstream media…that would be ya'll," says Darr. </blockquote>

===CNN===
In 2006 CNN.com has an article from columnist R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. entitled "Tyrell: Goodbye MSM... and good riddance!" <ref> http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/02/tyrrell.msm/index.html?iref=newssearch</ref> The article talks about the [[alternative press]] vs the MSM:

<blockquote> So we hear this week that President George W. Bush is taking delight in the spread of the "alternative press" (read conservatives on the internet, in talk radio, in print, and at Fox) and the gentle detumesence of "mainstream media" (read liberal media, or more precisely, Democratic media). Well I join him in his satisfaction. </blockquote>

==References==
<references/>

[[category:media]]
[[category:political terms]]

Talk:MSM

2007-08-02T02:24:46Z

BrianRobertson: /* Do liberals really use the initials MSM to allege conservative bias in the media? */

Talk:MSM

2007-08-02T02:24:02Z

BrianRobertson: Clarification

Talk:MSM

2007-08-02T02:22:07Z

BrianRobertson: Add link for refs

Talk:MSM

2007-08-02T02:18:18Z

BrianRobertson: more stats

Talk:MSM

2007-08-02T02:16:45Z

BrianRobertson: /* Do liberals really use the initials MSM to allege conservative bias in the media? */