A Conservative Media?

Your comments on conservative media are extreemly interesting to me. I am conservative as well, yet I do not see how the media is in any way conservative. Did you know that the response to Hurricane Katrina was actually one of the fastest responses to a natural disaster in American history. Yet did the media talk about this? No! All they ranted about was the fact that Bush was on vacation when the storm hit. How is that in any way conservative in viewpoint?

First let me state that I agree with your point of view on most fronts- to be conservative is to adhere to traditional principals and values. Modern media, which has gradually become more sexual and graphic in what it is willing to cover and portray during daylight hours (even on the conservative Fox network is guilty of this- though usually less so), honestly this is a serious reflection of how far society has come from the traditional values of yesteryear. I think most of us would agree that in the 1950s a commercial sponsor selling natural male enhancement would have been deemed unfit for any network broadcast- easily not during daylight hours when children may be viewing. Sex is a common topic, there is even a lot of the normal everyday sexual connotation that finds its way the political discussion segments. Those are not conservative principals- but a bowing to the fact that sex, and immoral behavior make money.
Also I just wanted to note that your comment “To me, it's not a conservative media, it's a corporate media with an agenda to keep rich, white, older men in power, and I can't find anything in my conservative philosophies that correlates with that.” is a little off mark.
Being of pure Japanese decent it is a little strange to come out defending Caucasians but the truth is the truth- In a time where we are asked to state of ethnic heritage (by choice-but asked) on job applications I think it is only fair to state that Rupert Murdoch is Jewish and would probably not want to be identified as White – per se.

of course, it is about coporateism, these people are not conservatives, they are neoconservatives, what is a neoconservatives, the new and updated version of conservative, they strip away some conservative belief such as privacy of one' faith and one's bedroom, add some liberal belief, but they are anything but liberal, for example, telling someone how to behave is through the government is liberal, because government in stepping into one's personal privacy, the neoconservative look at this, and took it to their advantage, that is why they are for big government coming into people personal privacy, no i think that you are a conservative, but i don't think that you are a neoconservative, and all those on the fox are the neoconservatives. bill kristal, bill bennet, donald rumesfield, dick cheney, scooter libby, and paul wolferwits would qualies as neoconservatives.

http://www.progressiveu.org/023424-conservative-versus-liberalism

I think the media is liberally biased, not conservatively. There are only a couple of news channels that are conservative, FOX being one of them. CNN, NBC, MSNBC, and a few others are liberal, however, and there are more of them. Let me give you an excerpt from an excellent book I read last year for a research paper, "The Official Handbook of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" by Mark W. Smith. The very first chapter addresses the issue: "No Liberal Media Bias? Let's Get Real":

The mainstream media goes berserk over allegations that Bsh administration officials Karl Rove and Scooter Libby leaked to the press the name of Valerie Plame, a soccer mom CIA employee who endangered her life every day by commuting between the Virginia suburbs and CIA headquarters. Yet it freely reported on information from illegal "leaks" about the National Security Administration's program of eavesdropping on communications between U.S. residents and potential terrorists abroad.
Here's what the Liberals say: "Because the media is dominated by for-profit businesses run largely by white males, they're really conservative and represent corporate interests."
This one is really a whopper. First "corporate America" is not necessarily conservative. The federal government's anti-trust lawsuit against Microsoft was encouraged by "corporate America" in the form of companies like Netscape. "Corporate America", as in the steel industry, lobbied President George W. Bush to raise steel tariffs in 2002--hardly a conservative policy. Second, "corporate America" is hardly a monolithic entity. Liberals label any business trying to make a profit--except the early exit polls--which had John Kerry winning in a landslide--were broadcast loudly and widely? And, of course, the exit polling data, which was compiled by media organizations, turned out to be, surprise, not only wrong but wrong in whose favor? John Kerry's.
What the Libreals say: Conservatives dominate the all-powerful FOX News Channel and the waves of talk radio, whose influence overwhelms any liberals in media.
Oh, really? So I guess we can just ignore the liberal bias of ABC, NBC, CNN, and PBS, as well as virtually all of the major daily newspapers in the nation. Before the rise of talk radio, the Internet, and FOX News Channel, conservatives were inundated by liberal propaganda. The purported "newspaper of record", the "New York Times", hasn't endorsed a Republican presidential candidate since Dwight Eisenhower. That's right: the "Times" endorsed George McGovern in 1972, Walter Mondale in 1984, and Michael Dukakis in 1988, as well as Jimmy Carter twice (1976 and 1980), Bill Clinton twice (1992 and 1996), and Al Gover (2000), and John Kerry (2004).
The rise of FOX News has given some balance to the media's overwhelmingly liberal tilt. Unfortunately, despite its success, FOX News is still not available in all areas of the country. WHen compared to the number of viewers that NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN reach every night, FOX's supposedly all-powerful influence pales in comparison. For example, on any given weeknight, FOX News may draw an audience of two million to the "O'Reilly Facot", but an average broadcast of NBC's "Nightly News" draws ten million.
Before FOX News, talk radio was virtually conservatives' only recourse. Conservatives dominate talk radio because people listen to them. There is no "liberal version of Rush Limbaugh" because nobody wants to listen to liberals. But what about Air America and Al Franken? Ha ha! Author Brian Anderson has reported: 'And look at Air America's ratings: They're pitifully weak, even in places where you would think they'd be strong. WLIB, its flagship in New York City, has sunk to twenty-fourth in the metro area Arbitron ratings--worse than the all-Caribbean format it replaced, notes the blog 'radioequalizer.' In the liberal meccas of San Fransisco and Los Angeles, Air America is doing lousier still.' Liberals who have started radio shows only to have them canceled due to lack of listener interest include former New York governor Mario Cuomo, former Texas agriculture commissioner Jim Hightower, Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz, former presidential candidate Gary Hart, former Connecticut governor Lowell Weicker, former New York Democratic mayor Ed Koch, former California Democratic governor Jerry Brown, and former Virginia Democratic governor Douglas WIlder.
In contrast, the radio waves are full of successful conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, Bill Bennett, G. Gordon Liddy, Oliver North, Matt Drudge, Michael Reagan, Michael Savage, Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingraham, and Sean Hannity--to name just a few. Sidestepping the liberal stranglehold on the major media, these talented conservatives give people a consumer choice. And when the American people are given a choice, they choose consrvative.
What the Liberals say: But conservatives get hired to air their views in the major media.
Nope. When they get on at all, conservatives still have to go to the back of the bus. Sure, a handful of conservatives may get to appear on the major networks, but only as clearly labeled "conservative commentators"--not as plan ol' "objective reporters." You won't catch the major networks giving a conservative a slot to deliver hard, objective news.
So while George Stephanopoulos, one of Bill Clinton's top advisors, was hired by ABC as the host of "This Week", conservatives such as Pat Buchanan, George WIll, Tucker Carlson, and John McLaughlin are always boxed into "reserved" or "designated" conservative seats.
In her eye-opening book, "Slander", Ann Coulter supplies an impressive list of former Democratic staffers who appear on television as "objective" news purveyors. The list includes, among many others, NBC's Tim Russert, who worked for New York Democratic governor Mario Cuomo and Democratic senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan; CNN's Jeff Greenfield, who was a speech-writer for Democratic senator Bobby Kennedy and liberal New York mayor John Lindsay; and CNBC's Chris Matthews, who wrote speeches for Jimmy Carter and Reagan nemesis Tip O'Neill. PBS's Bill Moyers worked as President Lyndon B. Johnson's press secretary. None of these people are labeled "liberal" commentators; instead, they're presented as "genuinely objective" journalists. Conservatives don't get that kind of respect.
And, I ask, which former adviser to President Bush has his or her own network television show? Ari Fleischer? Nope! Karen Hughes? Nope. The only former Bush administration official who has done well in the media after serving the president is Richard Clarke, with a best-selling book, a novel, and now a regular gig as a columnist for the "New York Times Magazine". Of course, Clarke broke ranks and sought to hurt Bush, so why wouldn't he be blessed with two great book deals and media adulation?
What the Liberals say: Even if journalists vote for Democrats, it does not mean that they unfairly report the news.
Let's talk about Rathergate. As you may recall, Rathergate arose during the heated 2004 presidential campaign, when Dan Rather and CBS News trotted out never-authenticated documents purporting to demonstrate that President Bush had performed poorly in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War and that he received preferential treatment from his commanding officers. The story immediately began falling apart in the Pajama Media when bloggers determined that the typesettings of the documents did not exist in the 1970s (when the documents were supposedly created). Despite standing by the phony story for weeks, CBS News president Andrew Heyward finally said, "Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret."
Think CBS was seeking to influence the 2004 election in favor of Kerry? Or did CBS News simply make an honest mistake by not adequately fact-checking what could have been the most important news story of 2004? Well, given that bloggers sitting at home deconstructed the story in a matter of hours, one wonders why the powerful and wealthy CBS News failed to figure out these facts before airing the story. Perhaps CBS fact-checkers need to start wearing pajamas to work? Or better yet, just stay at home.
Another great example of how the liberal media reports stories biased against politically conservative views is how they report stories about gun control. The public policy organization Media Research Center conducted a study tracking for two years in the late 1990s how the major media reported on gun issues. The study found that of the 653 gun-policy stories broadcast, 357 stories tilted in favor of gun control while a mere thirty-six tilted against gun control. THat's an anti-gun bias of 10-to-1. Likewise, John R. Lott, Jr. explained that in 2001, the three major television networks--NBC, CBS, and ABC--ran 190,000 words worth of gun crime stories on their morning and evening national news broadcasts. But they ran not a single story mentioning a private citizen using a gun to stop a crime. The print media was almost as biased: The "New York Times" ran 50,745 words on contemporaneous gun crimes, but only one short, 163-word story on a retired police officer who used his gun to stop a robbery. For "USA Today", the tally was 5,660 words on gun crimes versus zero on defensive uses.
Despite ridiculous liberal pretensions to the contrary, the majority of media in America is overwhelmingly biased to the left--and they distrort the "news" and "facts" that Americans see every day. Consider:
The "New York TImes" has not endorsed a Republican presidential candidate since Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s.
On the major networks, conservatives fill slots as the token conservative commentators on Sunday morning talk shows, but liberals are hired as anchors and hosts to deliver hard, objective news.
As none other than the "Boston Globe" explained, 2005 "was a year of good-byes--some noble, some less so--as journalism's old guard departed from the spotlight. And it was a year when some of the media's biggest institutions started thinking, in earnest, about reinvention." Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Ted Koppel, and Tom Brokaw are all gone now, with Rather botted from the air thanks to a false story about President Bush's National Guard service. Even "New York TImes" reporter Judith Miller was forced to resign her post after spending time in jail for refusing to disclose her source in the Valerie Plame affiar (though Miller obviously got the last laugh with her reported million-dollar book advance).
The United States is fighting a war in Iraq and elsewhere against terrorists who want Western Civilization destroyed. Terrorists perpetrated 9/11, slaughtered innocents, and beheaded American Nick Berg. Yet the mainstream media can't run enough stories against America's war in Iraq. As FOX News's Bill O'Reilly has explained, by June 29, 2004, the "New York Times" ran more than fifty front-page news stories about American soldiers mistreating Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. "By contrast," O'Reilly said, "the "Chicago Tribune", no bastion of conservative thought, twenty-eight. What's going on?" Why did the "New York TImes" feel the need to go overboard about a few bad apple soldiers in an American military force of over two million?
Of the 1,388 stories on the Iraq War aired on the evening news programs of ABC, CBS, and NBC during the first nine months of 2005, "61% of the stories were negative or pessimistic, while only 15% of the stories were positive or optimistic," according to Rich Noyes of the Media Research Center.
Mainstream media giants such as the "New York Times", the "Boston Globe" and Knight-Ridder are laying off employees.
89% of the Washington bureau chiefs and reporters voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 while only 7% voted for George H.W. Bush.

Yeah, sorry that was so long. I just wanted to make sure that you had all the stats :)
--------------------------------------------
I roll out of town like a run-away train. I'll do as I dare, let them call me insane. I'll never sit on the sidelines of life, I'll dance every dance. While I still have the chance.

You mention that you are conservative. We have a short-term project in my AP Government class, in which we give out a Political Attitude Survey. I have found that a lot of people who take part in the survey are surprised at the results. I currently have it on my blog, so feel free to come by and see where you fall! I'd be happy to have you participate! :)
--------------------------------------------
I roll out of town like a run-away train. I'll do as I dare, let them call me insane. I'll never sit on the sidelines of life, I'll dance every dance. While I still have the chance.