is the media really biased?

Question #1

How could this happen that all of the news anchors are liberal "hippies?"  This raises a very good point, and I personally have been approached with this theory.  It is true that many journalists are in fact Democrats.  I think that conservatives view the news as being very liberal because there are often featured stories about gay rights, civil rights abuses, anti war demonstrations, women's rights, environmental issues, etc.  These are seen as being liberal causes or concerns.  Though this may be true, there are still many people who think that the news programs are not liberal enough.  I personally believe that a lot of what really happens in other parts of the world or even in our own backyard is not published in the news.  There are newsworthy things going on all the time that do not get press.  So does the news industry have a liberal bias?  I think they cover some liberal topics or issues, but at the same time, there is a lot about business on the news as well.  There are conservative issues on the news.  Maybe those issues aren't presented in a way that the conservatives agree with.  So perhaps the media does have a liberal bias...but being a liberal, I'm ok with that.  I think that maybe this point of view is aimed at mainstream America.  I think there are a lot more people who want to hear about issues like civil rights, women's right's, or environmental issues.  Or, maybe there's just some evil plan for them to get everyone in the country to think like them.  That to me is quite a funny thought to entertain.  I think the big CEO's do have control over who they hire and how they are running the industry. 

Question #2

The role of the mass media in a democracy is to give people information so that they can make informed decisions.  People need access to information about the presidential candidates, so they know who believes in what causes, who is going to work hard for their country and lead the country in the right direction.  People need this information so they know who they want to vote for.  Also, people need to be informed about what's going on in their neighborhood so they know they are safe.  They need to be informed about the traffic, so they know how long it will take to get to work.  They need to know what the weather will be like, so they know how to dress in the morning.  I think that corporate influence could possibly be a threat to democracy.  If you are being influenced by corporations, who's to say you are really making your own decisions?  I think that market competition makes things more confusing.  For example, how do you know if one candidate isn't a total liar and is going to lead the country down an even darker road than Bush has?  I think it's hard to say who should regulate the media's usage.  Maybe the people should regulate it.  I'm not quite sure how we would go about doing that, but it might make things more fair.  

Question #3

I don't think it's either of these.  I think that corporations hyper commercialize movies by producing t-shirts, action figures, coffee mugs, etc, and the people buy into it.  Literally.  If there weren't a Luke Skywalker action figure, I highly doubt that people would be walking around saying, "Wow, I bet my kid would really like it if they had a Luke Skywalker action figure!"  I also doubt that little kids would be saying that.  However, if these items are commercialized, the public will start to think, "Wow, that's awesome!  I've gotta have that!"  It's all about consumerism and capitalizing on that.