Okay okay…this is why I hesitated to join this board (I am leery of big mole-hills)!
But seriously, Chris, I understand what you are saying but I just respectfully disagree with your view of the media as being totally "leftist". I don’t want to start a big Clinton discursion but, just as an example of a right-bias, consider how the media attacked & feasted on one of the most successful presidents of the century. The media cuts both ways because it really only runs on one bias, and that is a money-bias. As long as people buy the magazines & watch the trials, the media will continue to thrive on exploitation of the famous. I also think it is important to note that the media is largely owned by big corporations, and, to quote a friend of mine, Gore and Bush "both suck the d*cks of big corporations". [img]http://www.freakscene.net/ubb/smilies/eek.gif[/img] So in that sense you really do have an even distribution of liberal/conservative political influence in the media. And since people like Browne or Nader do not cozy up to the corporations, they get less money and less media exposure.
Also, just to clarify, my understanding is that "media" are any means by which people relay information to one another. Many internet sites & enterprises would not survive without advertising; that is what I meant when I said without media we would not be having this discussion.
I am also interested in the origins of the "99.7%" statistic.
Much respect Hager! & thanks for appreciating my 2c Allison! [img]http://www.freakscene.net/ubb/smilies/face-icon-small-smile.gif[/img]
[This message has been edited by rosa (edited November 11, 2000).]