Why do we get media slant?

May 6th, 2014 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Greg Mankiw writes in the NY Times:

Consumers of the news, both from television and print, sometimes feel that they are getting not just the facts but also a sizable dose of ideological spin. Yet have you ever wondered about the root cause of the varying political slants of different outlets?

That is precisely the question that a young economist, Mathew Gentzkow, has been asking. A professor at the Booth School of Business at the University of Chicago, Mr. Gentzkow was recently awarded the John Bates Clark Medal by the American Economic Association for the best economist under the age of 40. 

And what did he find?

Mr. Gentzkow and Mr. Shapiro went to the Congressional Record and used a computer algorithm to find phrases that were particularly associated with the rhetoric of politicians of the two major political parties. They found that Democrats were more likely than Republicans to use phrases like “minimum wage,” “oil and gas companies” and “wildlife refuge.” Republicans more often referred to “tax relief,” “private property rights” and “economic growth.” While Democrats were more likely to mention Rosa Parks, Republicans were more likely to mention the Grand Ole Opry.

With specific phrases associated with political stands, the researchers then analyzed newspaper articles from 2005 to determine which papers leaned left and which leaned right. (They looked only at news articles and excluded opinion columns.) That is, they computed an objective, if imperfect, measure of political slant based on the choice of language.

A nice way to do it. Wonder if that could be done here?

With a measure of political slant in hand, the researchers then analyzed its determinants. That is, they examined why some papers write in a way that is more consistent with liberal rhetoric while others are more conservative.

A natural hypothesis is that a media outlet’s perspective reflects the ideology of its owner. Indeed, much regulatory policy is premised on precisely this view. Policy makers sometimes take a jaundiced view of media consolidation on the grounds that high levels of cross-ownership reduce the range of political perspectives available to consumers.

From their study of newspapers, however, Mr. Gentzkow and Mr. Shapiro, find little evidence to support this hypothesis. After accounting for confounding factors like geographic proximity, they find that two newspapers with the same owner are no more likely to be ideologically similar than two random papers. Moreover, they find no correlation between the political slant of a paper and the owner’s ideology, as judged by political donations.

Fascinating, and reassuring. So when people go on about ownership, there is no data to back up that an owner’s ideology slants most newspapers’ coverage.

So, if not the owner’s politics, what determines whether a newspaper leans left or right? To answer this question, Mr. Gentzkow and Mr. Shapiro focus on regional papers, ignoring the few with national scope, like The Times. They find that potential customers are crucial.

If a paper serves a liberal community, it is likely to lean left, and if it serves a conservative community, it is likely to lean right. In addition, once its political slant is set, a paper is more likely to be read by households who share its perspective.

So it is about meeting market demand. That’s one reason Fox News has done so well. For decades there was no TV broadcast presence that didn’t lean left.

Religiosity also plays a role in the story, and it helps Mr. Gentzkow and Mr. Shapiro sort out cause and effect. They find that in regions where a high percentage of the population attends church regularly, there are more conservatives, and newspapers have a conservative slant. They argue that because newspapers probably don’t influence how religious a community is, the best explanation is that causation runs from the community’s politics to the newspaper’s slant, rather than the other way around.

The bottom line is simple: Media owners generally do not try to mold the population to their own brand of politics. Instead, like other business owners, they maximize profit by giving customers what they want.

Makes sense.

Tags:

55 Responses to “Why do we get media slant?”

  1. Redbaiter (8,551 comments) says:

    What garbage.

    Survey’s show most so called journalists vote left wing.

    To vote left wing you need to have a certain mindset.

    This mindset overflows into their reporting. They just can’t help themselves.

    The bigger problem is the pretense to objectivity.

    For example the current issues with Judith Collins where we have so many far left commenters providing opinion with all the airs of objective umpires.

    When they’ve wanted to get Collins for years.

    Fakes and charlatans.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Colville (2,261 comments) says:

    I would have thought that advertisers would shape the politics of a media outlet rather than readers.
    Tho I suppose advertisers are hunting a particular audience.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. kowtow (8,323 comments) says:

    Why do we get media slant?

    Cos the vast majority are cultural marxists.

    The Donald Sterling beat up is a great example.

    Hilary Clinton dodging bullets in Sarajevo is another.(they ignored her lie)

    And Ezra Levant’s Obama Great Media Cover Up,is an amusing and excellent take on the whole thing.

    http://www.ezralevant.com/baracks_backstory/

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Colville (1,790 comments) says:
    May 6th, 2014 at 10:14 am

    Advertisers just want their adverts to be seen – the bigger the controversy the bigger the audience.

    The only time they get nervous is when the PC rules are in question – they don’t like being seen to support words that crop in in nursery rhythms like ‘eenie meenie minee moe’ for example.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. tom hunter (4,732 comments) says:

    The bottom line is simple: Media owners generally do not try to mold the population to their own brand of politics. Instead, like other business owners, they maximize profit by giving customers what they want.

    It would certainly explain the NZ media, given that most New Zealanders look to government first and foremost to solve their problems.

    But it does not explain the fact that many of the Antique Media still hue to their leftist lines even as their ratings, subscriber numbers and profits continue to collapse. Clearly the ideology of the journalists and editors is more powerful than a desire for survival.

    There’s also the fact that many, perhaps all, of these regional US media take their cues from what is covered (and more importantly what stories are ignored) by the very media this study excluded – those with national scope – which are surely even more important now than in earlier days, given the ubiquity of electronic communications.

    In that case the next step in the analysis would be to look at the influence of the communities of people those national-scope journalists mix with to determine why certain media lean the way they do.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Yoza (1,815 comments) says:

    So it is about meeting market demand. That’s one reason Fox News has done so well. For decades there was no TV broadcast presence that didn’t lean left.

    Fox ‘News’ does well because it panders to the bigoted sensibilities of that lunatic right-wing brand of Christianity prevalent throughout the US.

    As for media outlets, they have an market and a product. Their market is those corporations and businesses to whom they are selling advertising and their product is the attention span of those potential consumers who read, listen to or watch the advertising platform.
    If there is any ‘left-wing’ slant it is only there as an advertising ploy, the main stream media is generally a corporate endeavor and, as such, inherently right-wing.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. redqueen (555 comments) says:

    In the States or UK, I could well believe this, but in NZ, give me an example of an actual ‘right-wing’ newspaper…they’re all socialist numpties with a few right-wing articles thrown in to be ‘inclusive’. And that is for a country that, for the most part, doesn’t seem to cherish this nonsense. Hence why blogs seem to flourish in NZ, as most ‘reporting’ is otherwise just shite being shovelled upon us.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Having worked with journalists for many years, I can assure you they, in the main, make Stalin appear a capitalist. They think they are holier than thou, the world owes them a living, and they are beyond reproach . . . in fact, I would prefer to mix with the “Mob” than most of the journo scum.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. UglyTruth (4,551 comments) says:

    The Agency’s decision to work publicly with Hollywood was preceded by the 1991 “Task Force Report on Greater CIA Openness,” compiled by CIA Director Robert Gates’ newly appointed ‘Openness Task Force,’ which secretly debated –ironically– whether the Agency should be less secretive. The report acknowledges that the CIA “now has relationships with reporters from every major wire service, newspaper, news weekly, and television network in the nation,” and the authors of the report note that this helped them “turn some ‘intelligence failure’ stories into ‘intelligence success’ stories, and has contributed to the accuracy of countless others.” It goes on to reveal that the CIA has in the past “persuaded reporters to postpone, change, hold, or even scrap stories that could have adversely affected national security interests…”

    These admissions add weight to several reports and Congressional hearings from the 1970s which indicated that the CIA once maintained a deep-rooted and covert presence in national and international media, informally dubbed “Operation Mockingbird.”

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/lights-camera-covert-action-the-deep-politics-of-hollywood/11921

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. RRM (9,834 comments) says:

    So it is about meeting market demand telling people what they want to hear. That’s one reason Fox News has done so well. For decades there was no TV broadcast presence that didn’t lean left.

    Fixed that for you DPF ;-)

    Yay for Fox news, now there’s a place where rightists can listen to what they want to hear, just like leftists do. :neutral:

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. flash2846 (274 comments) says:

    It would be interesting to test certain words and phrases in our universities and schools. I attended Canterbury University in the 1990’s where the left wing stance of almost every lecturer was sickening.

    We had a fantastic American lecturer teaching public relations and advertising who was constantly under attack from leftie feminazis because of so called sexist examples and language. He was talking about advertising for goodness sake.
    I really enjoyed along with 300 other students booing the feminazis out of the class when they asked us to back their complaints.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. RRM (9,834 comments) says:

    flash2846 (133 comments) says:
    May 6th, 2014 at 10:37 am

    It would be interesting to test certain words and phrases in our universities and schools. I attended Canterbury University in the 1990′s where the left wing stance of almost every lecturer was sickening.

    We had a fantastic American lecturer teaching public relations and advertising

    Back the truck up right there.

    There’s no need to smear the entire institution.

    If you study politicised stuff, you’re going to get politicised people involved.

    I studied civil engineering at Canterbury around the turn of the century. Timber, steel & concrete are as they are, there is no political left or right.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. flash2846 (274 comments) says:

    @ RRM – I usually enjoy your posts but in this case – What do you even mean?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Colville (2,261 comments) says:

    Judith
    Its not at tho the Beeb dont love Clarkson saying nigger and causing a fuss, he makes them soooo much money he is unsackable.
    But he is on his final warning for having a potty mouth…cue tui ad…

    The “slope” on the bridge was a far funnier gag IMHO.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. virtualmark (1,513 comments) says:

    Perhaps the main-stream media should think about Gentzkow & Shapiro’s work as they ponder why their revenues and profits are ebbing away.

    I strongly suspect that if you look at the Venn diagram of “media consumers” and “advertiser’s preferred targets” the intersection between those groups is predominantly high-paid people aged 18-60. I also strongly suspect the individuals in that intersection will be predominantly right-leaning.

    Perhaps Fairfax, APN and Ironbridge might want to think about whether their employees preferences & biases are actually aligned with their own best interests as owners. Free advice to Ironbridge: I’m sure I’m not alone in having totally stopped watching TV3 because of TV3 News and Campbell Live’s persistent bleeding heart left-wing bias. It is no wonder to me that Mediaworks is in receivership …

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. hj (6,918 comments) says:

    The <a href"= http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2014/05/national_reaffirms_pro-immigration_stance.html&quot;. Immigration Party Should Do O.K?

    In summary, the decade can be divided into two parts. The first is dominated by a
    moral panic about immigration, specifically from Asia, which was reflected in media
    reporting. The politicisation and problematisation of Asian migration was mirrored
    in the print media. After 1997, and certainly since 2000, opinion and feature writers
    adopted a very different approach, prompted in part by a major downturn in Asian
    immigration and a greater appreciation of at least the economic benefits of
    immigration but also as a result of b>a growing awareness amongst journalists that
    they had a role to play in explaining (positively) the complex issues of immigration.
    There was a realisation, from both managers and the journalists concerned, that these
    new migrants were an increasingly significant audience in their own right, underlined
    by the decline in print sales and revenue. There were some exceptions in terms of a
    small number of columnists in particular and of news reporting generally.

    Reporting Superdiversity. The
    Mass Media and Immigration
    in New Zealand
    http://newsettlers.massey.ac.nz/publications_pdfs/JIS%20Spoonley%20and%20Butcher.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Sonny Blount (1,780 comments) says:

    The slant of the papers clearly do not reflect their audience. The percentage of left-wingers in journalism is at least double the general population. The proportion of people consuming political and business media is more right wing than the population.

    A left wing journalist is unable to reflect a right wing perspective in their reporting because they do not properly understand the concepts and therefore have no idea of the pertinent questions. If they did understand the right wing principles then they would no longer be left wingers.

    A leftie is not capable of pretending to be a rightie for the sake of balance.

    Until newsrooms overall vote 75% right wing then there will be no balance in mainstream media.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    virtualmark
    But the American study shows no influence from owners in determining the political leanings of newspapers. The owners of TV3 are interested in meeting the demands of the market, to make money. So it is likely that any left-leaning bias (as perceived by you) is simply reflective of aggregate audience preference.

    Personally, I find New Zealand media to be pretty conservative. It is no surprise that Kiwibloggers find the media to be left wing: most Kiwibloggers would be situated well to the right on the political spectrum. What they don’t seem to realise is that those views are minority ones.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Fentex (937 comments) says:

    Media owners generally do not try to mold the population to their own brand of politics.

    How come “Media Owner’s” are written about after a description of a method of investigating newspapers? I didn’t see anything reported there on methodology relevant to, say, the Fox Television Network.

    Someone seems keen to conflate that research with an ambition to reassure people owners of all media don’t bias their outlets.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Kimble (4,434 comments) says:

    The bottom line is simple: Media owners generally do not try to mold the population to their own brand of politics. Instead, like other business owners, they maximize profit by giving customers what they want.

    And the ones that dont start to go out of business. How is Fairfax’s share price holding up?

    The Murdoch press is popular because it is what people want.

    In Australia, the response from the Left to this “incorrect thinking” on the part of consumers is to reduce their ability to choose.

    Typical.

    The slant of the papers clearly do not reflect their audience. The percentage of left-wingers in journalism is at least double the general population.

    The left wingers in PRINT journalism. How is the blogosphere faring?

    Maybe some of the decline in print media is due to Lefty-groupthink preventing them from providing a viable product.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Kimble (4,434 comments) says:

    I didn’t see anything reported there on methodology relevant to, say, the Fox Television Network.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch

    How does it feel to be turned gay from a blog comment?

    You know, because right about now you must be feeling like a real dick.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. tom hunter (4,732 comments) says:

    Personally, I find New Zealand media to be pretty conservative

    In what ways? What examples, large and small, could you give of this “conservative” slant? Also, do you mean conservative in the sense of limiting themselves in what they report on, or conservative in terms of pushing right-wing ideology, or both?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Sonny Blount (1,780 comments) says:

    mikenmild (9,061 comments) says:

    Personally, I find New Zealand media to be pretty conservative. It is no surprise that Kiwibloggers find the media to be left wing: most Kiwibloggers would be situated well to the right on the political spectrum. What they don’t seem to realise is that those views are minority ones.

    How did we manage to find ourselves with a National government after the last couple of elections then?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Fentex (937 comments) says:

    The Murdoch press is popular because it is what people want.

    If by “want” one means the political policies superficially espoused I don’t think that’s necessarily the right way to put it.

    I don’t know this as a fact, I merely ponder, that reading/hearing/watching media that get’s one blood up, that excites passions, may be something people are drawn to because the excitement – whether they feel happy, sad or otherwise about it – even whether they agree with it or not (how is it that many people who complain about these things know what they are saying?) is a spark that draws them.

    They may not “want” what is said to be adopted as policies, they may just enjoy the heat generated.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    tom
    When using the term ‘conservative’, I usually do so in the sense of maitaining the status quo rather than indicating specifically right-wing political ideology. So, to me, the National Party has always been a party of conservatism – maitaining the status quo whenever it inherits power.
    Sonny
    In the same way. I actually agree with many here who say the National Party is not right wing. It is very centrist, and actively endorses the socilism it was originally founded to oppose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Sonny Blount (1,780 comments) says:

    mikenmild
    Sonny
    In the same way. I actually agree with many here who say the National Party is not right wing. It is very centrist, and actively endorses the socilism it was originally founded to oppose.

    Fair enough.

    Go and have a look at the ‘loan shark’ thread today for evidence that Kiwiblog is not very right wing and socialist ideas are rather popular hereabouts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Fentex (937 comments) says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Murdoch

    I don’t understand. Are you arguing because Murdoch owns both newspapers and other media outlets what is tested about his newspapers must be true of other media he owns?

    The purported point of Mr. Gentzkow and Mr. Shapiro is to provide an objective basis for deciding if ownership of regional newspapers (they appear to have excluded national papers) influences their editorial policy.

    If it is a sound objective basis for deciding such a thing it doesn’t follow it extends to other properties owned by the same people. You would have to apply the same methodology to those other properties to measure agreement with the hypothesis.

    Picking a thing that seems to support a position you endorse and then conflating it without evidence with other things (superficially similar or not) is not the science this study purports to attempt, it is propaganda.

    I have no problem forming the hypothesis that someone knowledgeable in newspapers may buy many they don’t bother to worry about the editorial loyalties of with the ambition of growing wealth through their understanding of their properties value, and then later buying or building another property in media and for their own reasons choosing an editorial direction for it.

    Murdoch, for instance, may have – for no other reason than a desire for fame, reputation and wealth (or even just through a lifes habit) – have decided to build a television network on the back of wealth accumulated from newspapers he cared no more for than how much they earned him that he chose to push as far “right wing” as he could in a calculated plan to fill what he thought was an empty market.

    And if one applied the methodology of that study may find, because Murdoch may donate to Republicans more than Democrats, that he does correlate in personal opinion with his media property. Which would be a false positive if we accept that his plan was to fill a market niche and not promote his politics.

    The point is no matter which way the measure goes, that study of newspapers was not a study of television media.

    Besides which I don’t think that study was a very good measure at all. Politics in the U.S is so corrupt the wealthy often gift similar amounts to both ruling parties so that both will vest in their interests. It isn’t as strong an indicator, I suspect, of political loyalties as one might hope.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. tom hunter (4,732 comments) says:

    I usually do so in the sense of maitaining the status quo

    Well yes. I tend to think the Left in NZ – and the rest of the West – have been extremely reactionary and conservative over the last 30 years in trying to preserve the status quo of their glory days.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    But if you look at the contrasting histories of the National and Labour parties you see one tending to initiate reforms (whether for good or bad) and the other happily operating the policies they once fought against.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. stephieboy (2,794 comments) says:

    UglyTruth (3,305 comments) says:
    May 6th, 2014 at 10:32 am

    Yes its likely the CIA attempt to infiltrate Hollywood and the media in nefarious nefarious ways as per Operation Mockingbird . but no more or no less , I would say ,than the former KGB and its successor the FSB. But the governments of the former and of the latter have preferred much more direct forms of control and subversion such as the history of the former Pravda, Izvestia etc amply show us and Russia Today under the tight grip of Putin and the Kremlin today.
    Operation Mockingbird in terms of effectiveness is very open to question as the e.g Pentagon Papers , Watergate etc, not forgetting Ed Snowden and the NSA testify.
    But more significantly the proliferation of a multitude of Conspiracy blogs l like Infowars, Prison Planet, Democracy Now , Counterpunch , Paul Craig Roberts, Resne, Global Research, etc , etc that challenge ( albeit, in my view ,r mostly her woefully ) the Official Conspiracy theory or the Official or CIA view of things, whatever you like to call it.
    The truth is that i,n spite of Operation Mockingbird an ,Open and free media is still alive and well and a reality in the US as well l as here.
    Rather obvious. I would of thought./!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Kimble (4,434 comments) says:

    I would omit the word “happily”. Objecting to the policy before it is implemented is very different to removing it.

    Labour has no problem giving different people more money and expanding the role of government.

    The economy National inherits almost always has adjusted to stupid Labour policies meaning that removing them would cause considerable hardship.

    This is not something that Labour ever has to care about.

    Labour jumps into the bear pit.
    National has to deal with the bear.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I said ‘for good or bad’. Not everything implemented by a Labour government has been bad, economically or socially. Many would see the changes made by, say, the fourth Labour government as necessary, but ones most unlikely to have ever been made by a National government.
    It’s a problem if you get into a DPF mindset of Labour=bad and National=good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Kea (12,407 comments) says:

    stupidboy, your fellow soldier of Christ, Katie, reckons the marxists run Hollywood to promote gay sharia law ! You don’t need to reference Ugly’s conspircacy blogs, you heard it first on KB :)

    “Talking of sharia ,its funny how vociferous minorities always insist on imposing their views on the majority. Homo activists are among the worst offenders.Ably assisted by the cultural marxists in Hollywood and the media.”

    Katie KB 2014

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    ‘cultural marxists’. That term always makes me laugh out loud.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Kea (12,407 comments) says:

    milky, it is a valid descriptive term. Look it up… or ask Red.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    milky, it is a valid descriptive term.

    It’s a misunderstanding of Marxism, which is a materialist philosophy.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Kea (12,407 comments) says:

    TJ, riddle me this then ?:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Cultural marxism is indeed a concept. Used by kowtow and others of his ilk it is a piece of meaningless snark

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Kea (12,407 comments) says:

    milky, I did not invent the term and used to think like you do about it. Upon further reading I realised it is a valid term that describes a particular philosophy. I was wrong and so are you now.

    The left do not own the language.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Redbaiter (8,551 comments) says:

    Cultural Marxism, Dialectic Marxism and Critical Theory are all basically the same thing and a political methodology rather than an ideology.

    The ideology is Marxism. The others are a means of implementing Marxism.

    Tom Jackson knows that. He just doesn’t want the victims of his methodology to know it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    It is indeed a valid concept, Kea. When fuckwits like kowtow or Reddy use it though, they should demonstrate just how whatever it is they are moaning about demonstrates cultural marxism. Otherwise, like I say, it’s just meaningless abuse.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Redbaiter (8,551 comments) says:

    You demonstrate it every time you comment Milky, as in being a Marxist and not even knowing it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    If that’s the case, Reddy, you should easily be able to demonstrate my marxism. Bet you can’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    By the way, I jsut came across an interesting piece by John Ralston Saul about Marxists:
    ‘The only serious functioning Marxists left in the West are the senior mangement of large, usually transnational corporations. The only serious Marxist thinkers are Neo-conservative’
    He goes on to describe the basic tenets of Marxism and note that it had been largely replaced by the ‘ideology of stable bureacratic management’.
    He goes on to say:
    ‘The only disagreement between the Neo-conservatives and Marx is over who wins the battle in the end. This is a small detail. Far more important is their agreement that society must function as a wide-open struggle.
    ‘Some people are surprised that Marxism should have re-emerged on the Right. However, ideas, once launched, become public property. And they often reappear in several disguises before discovering their true form.’

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. kowtow (8,323 comments) says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School

    marxistmikemild

    There ya go. “Not a meaningless snark”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. CharlieBrown (1,003 comments) says:

    I would say the quality of journalism in the USA is far better than that in NZ. The press in NZ make the news and create the hysteria. Case in point is legal highs.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    kowtow
    The fact that there was a Frankfurt School and that cultural marxism is an actual concept does not make your use of the term any more meaningful.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. kowtow (8,323 comments) says:

    marxistmike

    The fact you made a comment on the subject doesn’t make your comment meaningful either.In fact ,like the vast majority of your comments, it’s the usual bollox that we’ve come to expect from you.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    I’m just going to take that as an acknowledgement that you are incapable of making any argument about the influence of cultural marxism.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. kowtow (8,323 comments) says:

    Pretty much at the same level as your 909 ,so up yours.

    Nightie night ,comrade.Get your sleep …..no cancel that,you’re a public servant,aren’t you?So will be on glide time all day tomorrow.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Kea (12,407 comments) says:

    Milky you seen unaware the exact same accusations could be applied to your labeling. As a devout and loyal communist you stick inappropriate labels on everything. It’s because you fundamentally reject nature in favour of ideology.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    Just maybe, before you are next tempted to use the term ‘cultural marxist’ as a handy epithet, you will use it as part of an acutal argument to show the marxist influences you see everywhere. Hope there are no reds under your bed.

    Who or what have I labelled, Kea?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Kea (12,407 comments) says:

    Come of it milky ! We all slap unflattering labels on each other here :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. mikenmild (11,247 comments) says:

    So, no actual examples then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Kea (12,407 comments) says:

    Milky no one has been victimised by your cruel and inappropriate labelling fetish more than the loveable and endearing Kea, who is only trying to help educate you so you are a better person. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.