looking through some of the old posts, i see that there is quite a bit of people claiming a media biasis towards liberalism, now i read quite a bit, not a lot of TV watching because most of it is crap, so lets talk about this so-called baisis in the print media. here is how I see it ( i could be wrong, but could be right), there is no biasis in the print media, i figure it is more of a demographic and capitalist issue, take the LA Times which I read every day we all know there are very liberal attitudes in the west so if i as an editor want to sell ad space, my clients want the biggest bang for thier advertising buck so i in turn will have a more liberal editorial stand, if I also own the Globe and mail (which I also read everyday) it is geared towards a more financial conservative group, so again I am going to publish in financial centers, not bumfuck Iowa it is all about (a) getting readers who pay for the papers, and (b) getting the most advertising revenue into the paper. so instead of a biasis, i am thinking it is more marketing and money driven. When we look at print books we see that random house has published books by Al Franken, Bill Clinton, Obama and lo and behold Bill Rielly, Napaleon Hill and Ann Coulter, so again there is no biasis, it is simply what the public is buying off the shelves, think about it, if you are a publisher and the Al Franken senate run is front page news, chances are people would be interested in his book, so again your job is to put out what people buy and make money for your company. So maybe the biasis is not in the media, maybe the shift is in what people are buying and if you hold any shares in these companies would you not want them to make as much profit as possible by following trends and god forbid actually make your investments worth something.
Cussane
