of course they are suppose to serve the people

and of course special interest groups affect them much more than they should in an ideal society

this still is all irrelevant imo

I think the establishment exists to serve itself. That's why it's called the establishment - because it's established and powerful. I think in general the media is somewhat anti-establishment actually. Look at the relatively favorable primary coverage over the last 8 years given to "anti-establishment candidates" like John McCain, Howard Dean, and Barack Obama

Talking about big business and media... Clearly the entertainment industry is pretty darn big business. And it's also clear as glass where they sit along the political spectrum.

So big business doesn't necessarily follow the stereotypical pro-republican stance.

But again Dustin, I think this is exactly what you're trying to say...

I've glued my head back together.

At the very least you have a definition of the establishment- thats a start. What do you think establishment is?

Who do you think the establishment candidates would have been that were running if not for Obama and McCain?

I'm assuming Clinton and then who on the Republican side was the most connected to your definition of the establishment?

I'll argue that they all were/are with the exception of Ron Paul, although its possible thats not the case. I don't really know enough about people like Mitt Romney.

*I think its safe to say that any candidate who is a member of or strongly connected to the CFR is a part of the establishment

you guys see -- mason posted in politics

Clinton would be the Democrat - I was mostly talking about McCain in 2000 when he ran against Bush - Romney was probably more connected this year but I didn't follow that as closely as I followed the Dem primaries.

Politically my definition of the establishment is a combination of the national commitees from each party along with all their nationally elected representatives (and the staffers, advisers, etc that come along with both). The national committees are both very closely tied to the big donors that I think (but am not sure) that you were referring to as "big business" in the political game. These committees tend to adopt their nationally elected representatives and bring them into the circle of decision making power. In practice they can raise HUGE amounts of money for candidates and help coordinate a national campaign with their lists of donors, campaign staffers, and other election moving infrastructure (volunteers, state and local party records, etc).

So how much of that do you agree with and, if you agree with most of it why do you think the media favors this establishment?

Also why has noone mentioned the alledged failed assassination of Obama?

I haven't heard about it

whats there to talk about? If he wins, there will probably be lots of them

If obama wins, we will have to spend more money on Security of the president than W spent in Iraq!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ZOMG!!!!!!!

I think the term "the media" is a lot more complicated than what most people think. I think there are sources of liberal bias within that as well as sources of conservative bias. People don't seem to include Fox News when they use the term "the media" which I don't really understand. I think it even should include talk radio as well as books which with few exceptions are incredibly biased for conservatives.

So while it's more complicated, no I don't think "the media" is biased to the left. I think people that say it is are probably being honest in their opinion (though I think they overstate the case to the extent that they think it's fact) but they only have this view because they exclude several key outlets that are biased on their side. They will cite the NY and LA Times which certainly have left-leaning editorial pages, but ignore the NY Post and WSJ.

I think the huge outlets like CNN and national news on the networks are biased in favor of sensationalism and laziness/oversimplification pushes certain narratives out there that shouldn't be.

A good example of both is the Democratic primary. Barring a huge move by super delegates for Hillary, which was obviously not going to happen, Obama had it wrapped up pretty early. This was pretty clearly to most people following it closely enough to understand the way the proportional delegate system and how it affected the race. She needed not only big wins in the last several states but overwhelming wins. The demographics in those states favored her, but because Obama won by such large margins in the states that favored him, he only needed to not get blown out and he didn't. He did what he had to do at the end, no more no less. If you watched or read anything during that time the narrative was that he couldn't close the deal. IMO this was a combination of laziness - they just weren't familiar enough with the dynamics of the race, and sensationalism - it doesn't keep people tuned in if it's a blowout (see Republican primary). Having most people think the race was extremely close when it wasn't had a pretty big effect. On the positive side for the dems, a lot more people registered and got involved than would have in some of the later states. Pennsylvania is probably the state where they will most benefit from that. On the other side it drastically fanned the flames of Clinton supporters' anger because they thought she was in it and maybe even a favorite when she had basically no chance.

Personally, I watch CNN of the big 3 news channels because I can't stand how bad and clearly biased both Fox and MSNBC are. I will record fox news on election day but I will watch it only in the very likely event of an Obama win and only for entertainment purposes. I can't even handle bull**** where they just bring people on that have talking points and stay on the script. It's completely unbearable when it's the hosts doing the same.

Well, we could talk about whether the tactic of attempting to link Obama to terrorists and attempting to portray him as somehow "anti-american" has encouraged assassination attempts (I think they have to some extent).

It was hugely overblown. As far as I understand it, it was apparently a couple white supremacists that were going to break into a gun store and steal a bunch of weapons and shoot up a predominantly black school. They also had some kind of notion to kill Obama in what would basically be a drive-by shooting. Didn't sound too dangerous.

I don't think that McCain became an establishment figure in 2008 when he wasn't in 2000. I think that by and large, all candidates from the major parties are members of the "establishment". I don't think that you can get to the point where you could launch a credible campaign and not be a member.

Even if you could, whats to stop the media from just ignoring you if they wanted to? I think that this is how the non-establishment types get vetted out from Presidential races.

I think you've gotten suckered into believing that McCain (at least the old McCain) was a political "maverick" who was at odds with the administration.

I used to believe this too actually. Its just a game. Or more like a play being put on for the people. If you believe that both political parties are actually not opposed to each other at all and work together, then it really isn't a great stretch to think that McCain was never really at odds with the Bush administration.

The people have to believe that the political process is real, and part of maintaining that illusion isn't just the fighting between the parties, but also within the parties.

As I think you can see, my definition encompasses a little more. I would actually prefer not to use the term establishment- I would prefer to use the term elite, but I think establishment is a little bit more palatable. I think that when you get down the level of staffer, and even national party committee members, that these people are most likely clueless to the behind the scenes machinations though.

I think they favor the establishment because they are owned by the establishment.

i don't know much about the us media - except that the last republican candidate endorsed by the NY Times was Moses and a little bit about Fox, which sounds like a shambles.

in the uk there is a generally broad mix of bias - each paper has a leaning, but in general it all tends to be pretty weak journalism anyway. The most powerful media bloc (Rupert Murdoch) tends to be centre-right, but has supported the labour party when it moved to the centre, but is profoundly anti-paneuropeanism.

Interestingly the BBC, which tends to be a bit leftish, imv, largely due to it's employment, receives as much 'zomg you're leftwing biased' mail as it does 'zomg you're rightwing,' so bias is often in the eye of the beholder.

Calling the bailout socialist is, as i probably have said multipole times already, laughably reductive and gives almost exactly zero insight into the issue at all.

What I think is an interesting comparison is Hurricane Katrina vs. Hurrican Subprime ****up.

Rupert Murdoch is Fox News. He is the owner.

He is actually friends with Hillary Clinton and had a fundraiser for her

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n1600694.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12762092/

i don't exactly think of hillary clinton as left wing

So the owner of fox supported a democrat, but fox news is uber-pro republican. Wow, i see your point

...

not

kokiri
why isnt it socialist? Wouldnt capitalism allow these banks to fail?

do things have to be either socialist or capitalist?

economically? I would tend to think so

Socialist or free would be more accurate.

I guess I'm too late for the media bias conversation but I think I am too tired today to organize my thoughts coherently anyway. If socialism/capitalism is bivalent than arguably the US economy has been socialist for quite some time now (and you can't say "more" socialist or "less" socialist if there's only two values ldo)

The bailout is not "socialism" because socialism requires a centrally planned economy. This is more fascism, with government owned, but independently (apparently) operated businesses.

Edit: Oops, I forgot - socialism also removes all private property, which obv hasn't happened

The American use of the word socialist could, it appears, basically be replaced by unamerican, and is essentially a meaningless pejorative. Calling the bailout socialist is unhelpful because it gives exactly no insight into the purposes, designs, ramifications and likely results of it, or its absence.

socialism aims to protect and enhance the interests of the labour input to economic activiy, at the expense of the invested capital interests.

Just because socialism has historically involved nationalization, it doesn't follow that nationalization is necessarily done for socialist reasons. To call the bailout socialist is to suggest that it's being done in order to help out workers in some way, which is clear nonsense. If the bailout doesn't happen, and banks go bust, then the big losers are bondholders. So the bailout is helping capital interests more than labour.

I would call it corporatist, probably.