Comments on: Jill Greenberg: Bogeyman

By: Claimsman

Claimsman — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 06:13:21 +0000

There are liberal journalists. There are liberal photo-jounalists. But with the exception of a few (very few) media outlets, usually small publications with low circulation or blogs on the Internet, there is no "liberal media" in the United States. The gamut, for about 95% of the media, runs from conservative to ultra-conserative, and that has been the situation for a long, long time.

By: ben posch

ben posch — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 10:22:54 +0000

isn't it the republicans who are always bitching about the "whiny liberals" complaining when some right-winger has an opinion and spews it without a care what the rest of the world thinks (like uh, ALL republicans)? i suggest the republican party grow a pair of balls, they're beginning to sound like a bunch of little girls. i mean really. nagging on an artist for having an opinion? oh my god! and expressing it? oh the horror! sorry, but isn't that what artists DO?i also love that they're really working to tie the crying babies/mccain pieces together with this thread of "well she hates babies, so obviously she hates republicans too!"yup. crying babies = republicans.

By: ian campbell

ian campbell — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 11:44:05 +0000

Agree with the idea Woodward and Bernstein today wouldn't have had a chance, but wonder now how many reporters are really as liberal as we might expect. The small city publication I deal with regularly has more conservatives on its staff than liberals, certainly the higher up you go.
Liberal media? Hah, I think not.

By: carlos benjamin

carlos benjamin — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 15:32:02 +0000

I don't think it's an issue of 'the media' being liberal or even Jill Greenberg being liberal. What she did was betray a trust in such a public (and childish) way that it will now make it more difficult on photographers to get jobs shooting politicians or any other individual who has a public to concern themselves with.

By: Scott B

Scott B — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:40:38 +0000

Corporations are conservative in that, with few exceptions, they will fight against any increase in government oversight or taxation, and will always fight for de-regulation and reduced taxes. This helps to drive the bottom line for shareholders. There's nothing wrong with this per se -- it's what corporations are supposed to do. The issue is whether corporate power can be effectively balanced by the will of the people when the interests of the two do not coincide.

By: Matt Rupp

Matt Rupp — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 10:12:09 +0000

I think using the word "progressive" to describe "liberal" is a mistake. May people favor better conditions, new policies, ideas, or methods but disagree with liberals.

I do agree that most journalists don't enter the profession for the money they make, but by the impact they have. Unfortunately, this impact translates to power which for some is better than money.

I disagree that having a large percentage of liberal media is a non-issue. Many people are not critical thinkers and rely, perhaps unconsciously, on their media outlet (conservative or liberal) to form their opinions for them.

I also disagree that any large corporation is inherently conservative. Once a corporation is publicly traded then all decision are based wholly on stock price and dividends and nothing else. If a CEO does make a decision base on some moral, social or political issue that causes the stock to go down, the CEO will be gone at the next shareholder meeting. If it goes up then CEO can stay for another round.

As for Ms Greenberg, she is not a journalist and does not have an obligation to show McCain in a favorable light. While she does have the power to influence people she is not doing it under the guise of being unbiased.