Us Media Bias

Comments

• Apos Join Date: 2003-06-14 Member: 17369Members, Constellation

  January 2005

  It seems to me that you will not be satisfied unless the media simply never reports bad news about Iraq or gives ear to problems with policies you support. This seems less like analysis on your part, and more like a strategy to "work the refs" so that they'll be afraid to do anything that doesn't slant your way.

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• Marine0I Join Date: 2002-11-14 Member: 8639Members, Constellation

  January 2005 edited January 2005

  <!--QuoteBegin-Apos+Feb 1 2005, 01:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Apos @ Feb 1 2005, 01:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It seems to me that you will not be satisfied unless the media simply never reports bad news about Iraq or gives ear to problems with policies you support.  This seems less like analysis on your part, and more like a strategy to "work the refs" so that they'll be afraid to do anything that doesn't slant your way. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  That's not what I'm asking for. If you want to scream quagmire, if you want to throw nothing but dirty water over everything that happens in Iraq, then come out and label yourself as a liberal media centre rather than pretending to be neutral. Come out and admit you are opposed to the Iraq war, and as such will report it that way.
  
  You can report that things are tough in Iraq, but for the love of God report something positive once in a while. Dont pretend nothing positive is happening, I have plenty of links to evidence great things are happening - so why not report some of that to balance the fighting and insurgency/terrorism. Oh wait, why do that when I can plant a question for Rumsfeld, then cutandpaste his response to make him look like an arrogant ahole?
  
  I read The Australian, a Murdoch newspaper in (surprise) Australia. And even then they simply choke at reporting anything in Iraq without putting a negative slant on it. This man summed it up for me:
  
  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By Thomas Sowell
  Originally published January 27, 2005
  THERE ARE still people in the mainstream media who profess bewilderment that they are accused of being biased. But you need to look no further than reporting on the war in Iraq to see the bias staring you in the face, day after day, on the front page of The New York Times and in much of the rest of the media.
  
  If a battle ends with Americans killing a hundred guerrillas and terrorists, while sustaining 10 fatalities, that is an American victory. But not in the mainstream media. The headline is more likely to read: "Ten More Americans Killed in Iraq."
  
  This kind of journalism can turn victory into defeat. Kept up long enough, it can even end up with real defeat, when support for the war collapses at home and abroad.
  
  One of the biggest American victories during World War II was called "the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot" because American fighter pilots shot down more than 340 Japanese planes over the Mariana Islands while losing just 30 American planes. But what if our current reporting practices had been used back then? The story, as printed and broadcast, could have been: "Today, 18 American pilots were killed and five more severely wounded as the Japanese blasted more than two dozen American planes out of the sky." A steady diet of that kind of one-sided reporting and our whole war effort against Japan might have collapsed.
  
  Whether the one-sided reporting of the war in Vietnam was a factor in the American defeat there used to be a matter of controversy. But in recent years, high officials of the Communist government of Vietnam have admitted that they lost the war on the battlefields but won it in the U.S. media and on the streets of America, where political pressures from the anti-war movement threw away the victory for which thousands of American lives had been sacrificed.
  
  Too many in the media today regard the reporting of the Vietnam War as one of their greatest triumphs. It certainly showed the power of the media - but also its irresponsibility. Some in the media today seem determined to recapture those glory days by the way they report on events in the Iraq war.
  
  First, there is the mainstream media's almost exclusive focus on American casualties in Iraq, with little or no attention to the often much larger casualties inflicted on the enemy. Since terrorists are pouring into Iraq in response to calls from international terrorist networks, the number of those killed is especially important, for these are people who will no longer be around to launch more attacks on American soil.
  
  With all the turmoil and bloodshed in Iraq, military and civilian people returning from that country are increasingly expressing amazement at the difference between what they have seen and the one-sided picture that the media present to the public here.
  
  Our media cannot even call terrorists "terrorists," but instead give these cutthroats the bland name "insurgents." You might think that these were like the Underground fighters in Nazi-occupied Europe during World War II.
  
  Real insurgents want to get the occupying power out of their country. But the fastest way to get Americans out of Iraq would be to do the opposite of what these "insurgents" are doing. Just by letting peace and order return, those who want to see American troops gone would speed their departure.
  
  . But the real goal of the guerrillas and terrorists is to prevent democracy from arising in the Middle East.
  
  Still, much of the Western media even cannot call a spade a spade. The Fourth Estate sometimes seems more like a Fifth Column.
  
  Thomas Sowell, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, writes a syndicated column that appears Thursdays in The Sun. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  I have seen, over and over again, US opinion polls showing that Americans disapprove of Bush's handling of the Iraq war. You know how many times I saw the military newspaper poll showing that 60% of soldiers in Iraq supported Bush's handling? Not freaking once. Is that not big news? Does nobody really care about that? Or would they rather not report that? Answer seems pretty obvious to me.

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• Tofumaster Join Date: 2004-04-10 Member: 27829Members

  January 2005

  <!--QuoteBegin-Marine0I+Jan 31 2005, 08:50 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine0I @ Jan 31 2005, 08:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
  That's not what I'm asking for. If you want to scream quagmire, if you want to throw nothing but dirty water over everything that happens in Iraq, then come out and label yourself as a liberal media centre rather than pretending to be neutral. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Now I disagree strongly with the american media on many counts, but on Iraq - knowing several people who have spent time in the post-invasion Iraq, the media really isn't exagerating.

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• Apos Join Date: 2003-06-14 Member: 17369Members, Constellation

  January 2005 edited January 2005

  <!--QuoteBegin-Marine0I+Jan 31 2005, 08:50 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine0I @ Jan 31 2005, 08:50 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you want to scream quagmire, if you want to throw nothing but dirty water over everything that happens in Iraq, then come out and label yourself as a liberal media centre rather than pretending to be neutral. Come out and admit you are opposed to the Iraq war, and as such will report it that way.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  But this is exactly what pegs you as a partisan looking to work the refs and not an honest analyst. The media has done plenty of positive stories. Their coverage of the election was almost completely positive. But it is to your advantage to claim that's its all negative no matter what the facts are. It doesn't matter if what you are saying is true: all you have to do is try to make people immediately think "bias" the second something less than wonderful happens and gets reported on.
  
  And the fact is, most experts and even the government itself believe that Iraq has some very serious problems: that we really are losing out on our major aims. How can news agencies avoid reporting that?
  
  As to 60%, I've talked to military guys that believe that saying anything else would be treasonous. They believe in what they are doing, and that's good, because they have no choice at all in the matter and hopefully they can do some good. But that's a completely different issue from the sort of macro analysis of the issue that the media does.

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• BathroomMonkey Feces-hurling Monkey Boy Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 78Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor

  January 2005 edited January 2005

  I will probably be busy with work today, but I will defintitely be participating in this. For the time being, a few points.
  
  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Nice article. I'm going to be generous and assume you missed this little titbit:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  I didn't and I <i>should</i> have specified that it was for a specific range of coverage-- obviously, if you look at the chart, it isn't for a very extended period of time-- but the point still stands. Our news outlets shouldn't ever have cause to shed their 'objectivity'. There wasn't even anything remotlely resembling <i>balance</i>. It wouldn't have been appropriate to overload with coverage with people from the opposite side of the spectrum-- but <i>balancing</i> the voices certainly wouldn't have hurt the coverage. This was one of the most important dates of the year-- and they drop their 'bias' and go all the way in the other direction? That's hardly activism.
  
  Anecdotal: But CNN's coverage of election night was even worse. I just remember watching it while I was at the gym, and the only liberal commentator I saw was when they brought the cast of crossfire out (so even then it was a wash). I'll have to try to track down their guests that night.
  
  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Give a liberal media source a sensational story embarrasing for conservatives, and they'll harp on it for weeks. Give them the sensational story embarrasing for liberals, and they'll harp on it for a week. Give them a run of the mill everyday news, and they'll spin it left. The same applies vice versa for conservative outfits.
  <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  Like Kerry's non-affair? Swift Boat Vets? Dan Rather's botched reporting? Yeah, most outlets swept those recent stories <i>right</i> under the rug.
  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
  By the way - I didnt hear anything about Gore over here in kangaroo country. What happened to him in relation to the media?
  <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  The press seemingly <i>loathed</i> Al Gore-- his words were mangled into soundbites which made him sound like a completely ignorant, arrogant idiot. I'll post some of the finer examples when I have time-- but if you've heard that Gore claimed to invent the internet, then you've heard one of them.
  
  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
  I fail to see how an insider claiming the position was offered to a retiring conservative opinion writer demonstrates their willingness to bend over backwards to demonstrate they arent biased. That basically amounts to "some guy from NYT reckons the boss offered an old, on his way out retiring opinion writer the head of the journalistic integrity position." If they did - kudos to them. <b>Until they do it and I see the results of their efforts</b> - I'm going to treat them with the same scorn liberals level at Fox. Fox doesnt pretend to be anything other than a conservative news station. The afformented liberal outfits like to posture as neutral distributers of truth, and clearly are not.
  <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  You mean, until they do it and the conservative <i>accepts</i>? I mean, come on!
  1: "This paper has a liberal bias!"
  2: "Er . . we just offered you a position which would be central to combating that perceived liberal slant."
  1: [sulking]"Uh . . . . I Didn't want it."
  
  Before we get started here, I should define my position better. I have no doubt that there exists bias of all shades in reporting-- journalists are, after all, human. However, the whole systematic, nefarious shadowy liberal media controlled cabal is quite ludicrous.
  
  And, I think if you're going to pursue the fact that outlets have a liberal slant, then conservatives turning down positions at those outlets means that they bear some of the blame as well.
  
  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->However, I think they missed that fine line between fierce and savage criticism and pure obstructionism.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  Time for a needed trip in the wayback machine . . . you think what you see <i>now</i> is obstructionism?
  
  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg on an anti-flat tax story by CBS reporter Eric Engberg, February 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed.
  <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  Ah, 'Bias' and Bernie Goldberg. I'll have to relate the story where Bernie Goldberg got schooled by Al Franken because he was simply cribbing his 'liberal bias' quotes from the MRC, and on live TV, when asked to provide context for one, he couldn't. Franken <i>could</i>, the story actually had an opposite slant than then one described, and Bernie looked like a fool.
  
  Edit: Dammit, I'm trying to find the video for this, because it's fantastic. Doesn't seem to be up anymore . . . on the offchance that someone finds a link, please provide.
  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
  They found that journalists were to the right of the general population in economic matters, and to the left of them in social matters. I believe this is because large media corporations owned by rich and powerful men dont take to kindly to suggestions of tearing down the bourgeois, but have a distinct leftwing view on social issues.
  <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  Ok, but this is an odd point to make-- if you're going to use this to demonstrate that there's a social bias, then ipso facto you're proving that there's a conservative bias to reporting of the broad category of 'economy'. So to take this and then say, "See? There's a liberal bias" is only telling <i>half</i> of the story.
  
  More original thoughts/info later, when I have the time.

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• Spooge Thunderbolt missile in your cheerios Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 67Members

  January 2005

  I don't think I grasp the scope of this particular discussion. Is this an attempt to definatively say "Liberal Media Bias Exists!" or is there some finer point being made?
  
  You see, I can point to FOX (as tired as that is), <a href='http://www.nationalreview.com/' target='_blank'>National Review</a>, <a href='http://www.washingtontimes.com/' target='_blank'>The Washington Times</a>, <a href='http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html' target='_blank'>Rush Limbaugh</a>, and so on. Conservative voices are being heard now.
  
  The real point is, the Conservative viewpoint hasn't been properly voiced for many years. Conservatives have felt their opinions being suppressed and belittled not just from everyday news sources, but also from pop television, magazines, movies, commercials, etc. I can only assume that's the reason so many younger readers here think that "Everyone" hates Bush. Calling it Bias can be misleading.
  
  It would seem that the majority of media type outlets are more and more willing to let their political and/or idealogical beliefs enter into broadcasts where traditionally they wouldn't seem appropriate. Example, the GF makes me watch <a href='http://www.nbc.com/ER/index.html' target='_blank'>ER</a> with her every week. She's liked the show since the beginning and lately is getting more and more frustrated by it. Why? It would seem that, for one reason or another, every week one character on the show gets to take a snipe at President Bush. Why is that necessary? And no, I won't even go into The West Wing. Does anybody even watch that show? ugh, what tripe. BTW, before you get all in a bunch, there were plenty of shows that made fun of Clinton's cigar, for example. The differences, however, are noted in context and tone. You won't convince me that there is balance in this area. I was around to hear them tear Reagan to shreds.
  
  There is no mind control ray beaming in from your television when you watch this stuff. There is no secret society of super-Liberals who pull the strings. Unless, of course, they're hanging out with The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy masters. But, as one who has a Conservative perspective on life, I can tell you that I hear specific words and phrases being intermingled into scripts and news articles that are either meant to be offensive to me or are allowed through by ignorance.

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• BathroomMonkey Feces-hurling Monkey Boy Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 78Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor

  January 2005

  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I won't even go into The West Wing.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  Who have, in the past, hired people like Frank Luntz and Peggy Noonan as consultants.
  
  You can try watching Law and Order, which features former GOP Senator Fred Thompson, and has been framing certain points and plots (especially those relative to civil liberties) in a conservative friendly manner.
  
  You also have South Park and Team America (which aren't necessarily the most conservative venues, but they certainly bear a larger grudge towards liberals . . plus, if I'm not mistaken, Trey Parker is a registered libertarian).
  
  But now if we're branching out into other realms, Conservatives absolutely <i>dominate</i> radio-- where a substantial percentage of Americans receive their news.

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• Spooge Thunderbolt missile in your cheerios Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 67Members

  January 2005

  <!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Jan 31 2005, 12:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Jan 31 2005, 12:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But now if we're branching out into other realms, Conservatives absolutely <i>dominate</i> radio-- where a substantial percentage of Americans receive their news. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
  True enough, but has anyone stopped to ask, "Why?" and "For how long has this been happening?" Framing this into the last 5-10 years doesn't work because the Right side of the equation has been increasing for that time.
  
  And to answer the question I'll use an old stand-bye--"demand created the supply". <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• BathroomMonkey Feces-hurling Monkey Boy Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 78Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor

  January 2005 edited January 2005

  <!--QuoteBegin-Spooge+Jan 31 2005, 05:39 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Jan 31 2005, 05:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Jan 31 2005, 12:31 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Jan 31 2005, 12:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But now if we're branching out into other realms, Conservatives absolutely <i>dominate</i> radio-- where a substantial percentage of Americans receive their news. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  True enough, but has anyone stopped to ask, "Why?" and "For how long has this been happening?" Framing this into the last 5-10 years doesn't work because the Right side of the equation has been increasing for that time.
  
  And to answer the question I'll use an old stand-bye--"demand created the supply". <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  True, but then that can also be used to validate the other side of the industry, can't it?
  
  <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
  
  I think you may see a shift in Hollywood-- long an absolute liberal enclave-- in coming years. You have a growing number of successful conservative actors (of varying stripes)-- Ahnold, Mel Gibson, Clint Eastwood, Bruce Willis, Tom Selleck (using 'successful' loosely now), Kurt Russel et al. who are shifting more into high level prodution roles.
  
  Well, except for Ahnold right now-- he's busy with other endeavors.
  
  So, that landscape certainly may shift as time goes on.

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• Timmythemoonpig Join Date: 2003-11-08 Member: 22407Members

  January 2005

  Just watching a documentary on English tv about the troops down in Basra, a place pretty unaffected by insurgents and its so clear that all the troops hate the place, most Iraqi's hate the place, everything is broken, the TV journalists hate the place. Now, sure enough schools are being rebuilt, infrastructure slowly coming back, electricity being restored....but for every bit of good news theres 10 bits of bad news.
  
  If you are a journalist in such a terrible place you're not gonna report that a new school has just been built, instead you are gonna report the fact that 3 students from the school have just been kidnapped.
  
  I find it very hard to watch _any_ US media, to me it all seems so patriotic, hero-worshipping and pro-war. Then again I watch Al-jazeera and its very anti-semetic and obsessed with conspiracy theories.
  
  Personally I would prefer if news stations showed everything, with no censorship, all the bloodshed and true violence of wars, but shock horror then we'd all be lefties.
  
  Doesnt matter though, there should be no more arguments even vaguely about Iraq, its had an election of some sort, its a democracy now, they had a vote, its perfect now, everything is goiiing juuuust fine, happy happy. I'd like to personally thank google so that I could keep any argument on the net going for as long as I was nerdy enough to keep it up.

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• Spooge Thunderbolt missile in your cheerios Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 67Members

  January 2005

  <!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Jan 31 2005, 12:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Jan 31 2005, 12:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> True, but then that can also be used to validate the other side of the industry, can't it? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Absolutely! But, their demand started around 30-40 years ago. Between Vietnam, Nixon's Watergate, and what might be considered the 3rd Great Awakening-The 60's Radical Hippy Movement, activists were tired of hearing the Old White Men In Suits telling them how and what to think. I can understand this backlash. While the untold masses were tuning in, turning on, and dropping out, the educated were taking key positions in journalism and teaching schools. They started changing things from one place that could be used to "make a difference". Over time, this activist movement has become the standard. They were filling all the roles with the like-minded and neglecting a significant portion of their consumers.
  Sure, there were a few voices in the wind like <a href='http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BIOS/cbbuckley.html' target='_blank'>William F Buckley</a>, <a href='http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/B/htmlB/brinkleydav/brinkleydav.htm' target='_blank'>David Brinkley</a>, and <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opinion/columns/willgeorge/' target='_blank'>George Will</a> but the overwhelming core of news agencies were full of the "make a difference" crowd. That's where Goldberg's "Bias" comes in. It's not the specifics that drives Conservatives crazy, it's the whole package. The assumptions. The choices of which stories to present and the selection and phrasing of questions.
  
  Need a current example? Flip to CSPAN the next time they show a press conference involving the Washington Press corps. I can usually get about halfway through before the regurgitation starts.

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• BathroomMonkey Feces-hurling Monkey Boy Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 78Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor

  January 2005

  To switch gears again, looking around, I found a recent example of how the MRC tactfully ignores context when decrying 'bias' at various outlets.
  
  <a href='http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2005/cyb20050117.asp#3' target='_blank'>Senator Kennedy, unopposed!</a>
  
  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On Fox News Sunday, Brit Hume marveled at how the first Face the Nation, after the CBS panel's report documented the network's hostility to President Bush, devoted the entire show to Senator Ted Kennedy who made a speech earlier in the week railing against Bush policies. Hume noted that the White House offered Communications Director Dan Bartlett "and CBS said, 'thank you, no' -- peculiar behavior for people who were only recently saying they wanted to make a, quote, 'fresh start' with the White House." Schieffer and co-panelist Dan Balz, a Washington Post reporter, tossed a series of softballs to Kennedy, prompting him for his "reaction" to Bush's claims. Balz echoed Senate Democrats: "Given the legal advice that Alberto Gonzales provided that led to some of these [prisoner abuse] scandals, are you going to vote to confirm him or will you oppose him to be the next Attorney General?" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  Of course, it's Fox's Brit Hume leveling the charge. Senator Kennedy, alone! And they gave Dan Bartlett the cold shoulder!
  
  Hmmmm-- let's take a closer look at this.
  
  As CBS Chief Washington Correspondent Bob Scheiffer pointed out on Hannity and Colmes,
  
  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes. Dan Bartlett, who is the White House communications chief, <b>was on three broadcasts on Sunday</b>. He was on Meet the Press. He was on FOX News. He was on Wolf Blitzer's show on CNN. And we were asked if we would like him also. <b>Since he was going to be on three other shows, we decided not to do that</b>.
  
  Senator Kennedy, obviously, is the leader of the liberal left. He is going to be a big part of the Washington debate this year. <b>And since -- to be quite honest -- since we had had more Republicans on since the election than we had Democrats, we thought it was a good chance to put Senator Kennedy on</b>.
  
  You know, we're a half-hour broadcast. And I don't think it's necessary every time we have a Democrat on to have a Republican on. I mean, <b>we have had, I think, Senator [Bill] Frist [R-TN] on for the entire show</b>, the Republican leader in the Senate. <b>We have had Secretary of State [Colin] Powell on for the entire broadcast. In one broadcast, we had three Republicans on and didn't have a Democrat</b>.
  <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  And, let's look at their guests in that time span (Again, courtesy of Media Matters):
  
  November 7
  Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA)
  Senator Susan Collins (R-ME)
  Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
  
  November 14
  Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
  Representative Jane Harman (D-CA)
  TIME magazine Washington bureau chief Michael Duffy
  
  November 21
  Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN)
  New York Times columnist David Brooks
  Los Angeles Times staff writer Doyle McManus
  
  November 28
  Author Ron Chernow
  Historian Joseph Ellis
  Author and Washington Post staff writer Bob Woodward
  
  December 5
  Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS)
  Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
  TIME magazine Washington bureau chief Michael Duffy
  
  December 12
  Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
  Former baseball manager Tommy Lasorda
  Author and USA Today columnist Hal Bodley
  New York Daily News columnist Mike Lupica
  Author and ESPN The Magazine senior writer Buster Olney
  
  December 19
  Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
  Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
  Senator Jack Reed (D-RI)
  
  December 26
  Senator-elect John Thune (R-SD)
  Senator-elect Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
  Senator-elect Ken Salazar (D-CO)
  
  January 2
  UNICEF executive director Carol Bellamy
  Secretary of State Colin Powell
  
  January 9
  UNICEF executive director Carol Bellamy
  Former Carter national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski
  Former George H.W. Bush and Clinton administration official Dennis Ross
  
  January 16
  Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
  
  Again, selective journalism creates its own reality.

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• Spooge Thunderbolt missile in your cheerios Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 67Members

  January 2005

  While I'd rather stay away from that side of this, I'll add one defense:
  
  The assumption is that Dems are biting for the chance to be on any FOX show. The other aspect is the relevance of current events.
  
  I tend to refrain from defending FOX whenever possible but I will say that almost without fail, when a topic is discussed throughout the day, there is 1 pundit from each party there to present their respective talking points. This as opposed to say, Chris Mathews who notoriously surrounds himself with lefties and pretends to play "devil's advocate" by giving his interpretation of the opposing view.

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• BathroomMonkey Feces-hurling Monkey Boy Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 78Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor

  January 2005 edited January 2005

  <!--QuoteBegin-Spooge+Jan 31 2005, 06:24 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Jan 31 2005, 06:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> While I'd rather stay away from that side of this, I'll add one defense:
  
  The assumption is that Dems are biting for the chance to be on any FOX show.  The other aspect is the relevance of current events.
  
  I tend to refrain from defending FOX whenever possible but I will say that almost without fail, when a topic is discussed throughout the day, there is 1 pundit from each party there to present their respective talking points.  This as opposed to say, Chris Mathews who notoriously surrounds himself with lefties and pretends to play "devil's advocate" by giving his interpretation of the opposing view. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Yeah, but this isn't about Fox (the only relevant bit about that is that it's where Brit Hume made the charge), it's about CBS in general and 'Face the Nation' in particular.
  
  It's about conservatives getting more than their fair share of face time on this show, <i>and</i> getting significant representatives on exclusively-- and then picking a single example of the opposite, pretending it took place in a vacuum, and then offering it as an example of 'bias'.
  
  Now, as you've pointed out, there is the issue of relevance, and I would add 'temperament' to that. It's one thing to hold a combative interview for one guest, and then lob softballs to another. However, to piggyback on your statement, most of these shows seem engineered to give politicians a forum to simply dump their talking points.
  
  I'm trying to find the recent guest lists for Hardball, because it seems whenever I flip it on that Matthews is getting brow beaten by someone like Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin. I don't profess to watch it that much though, so I could definitely be wrong.
  
  Their website doesn't exactly make it easy to find guest lists, though.

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• Spooge Thunderbolt missile in your cheerios Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 67Members

  January 2005

  <!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Jan 31 2005, 01:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Jan 31 2005, 01:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm trying to find the recent guest lists for Hardball, because it seems whenever I flip it on that Matthews is getting brow beaten by someone like Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin. I don't profess to watch it that much though, so I could definitely be wrong.
  
  Their website doesn't exactly make it easy to find guest lists, though. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
  OMG CONSPIRACY!
  
  j/k <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
  
  
  Though there's no finger pointing here I have to say that Ms Coulter does not speak for what I consider the Conservative perspective. She takes on certain key points that are similar but I consider her below my standards.
  
  Malkin, on the other hand (whom I like very much), might not be making many return visits to Hardball <a href='http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000418.htm' target='_blank'>based on this particular episode.</a>

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• BathroomMonkey Feces-hurling Monkey Boy Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 78Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor

  January 2005 edited January 2005

  <!--QuoteBegin-Spooge+Jan 31 2005, 07:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Jan 31 2005, 07:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Jan 31 2005, 01:34 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Jan 31 2005, 01:34 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm trying to find the recent guest lists for Hardball, because it seems whenever I flip it on that Matthews is getting brow beaten by someone like Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin.  I don't profess to watch it that much though, so I could definitely be wrong.
  
  Their website doesn't exactly make it easy to find guest lists, though. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  OMG CONSPIRACY!
  
  j/k <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
  
  
  Though there's no finger pointing here I have to say that Ms Coulter does not speak for what I consider the Conservative perspective. She takes on certain key points that are similar but I consider her below my standards.
  
  Malkin, on the other hand (whom I like very much), might not be making many return visits to Hardball <a href='http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000418.htm' target='_blank'>based on this particular episode.</a> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  <a href='http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh082304.shtml' target='_blank'>And from the other side . . . </a>
  
  And I am afraid I miscategorized that one-- Michelle Malkin popped into my memory because of that incident, though it was really the other way around.
  
  Though, to be honest, I enjoyed it because I recall saying, "Holy crap, Chris Matthews is actually holding someone's feet to the fire?"
  
  I'd consider him a liberal, but (aside from a few episodes like this) a pretty ineffective one. He's in the hazy area between journalist and pundit, like his counterpart and network fellow Joe Scarborough (except that he doesn't know very much, and seems to take pride in being ill-prepared).
  
  And I hardly hold Ann Coulter to be representative of the conservative side, but she <i>is</i> a conservative (in the same way that Michael Moore is a liberal).

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• Legat Join Date: 2003-07-02 Member: 17868Members

  January 2005 edited January 2005

  There is a general tendency for media cooporations to show some kind of "leftwing" attitude to a certain extent.
  So much you cannot deny. However I would not call that bias. How should I say, it comes with the territory.
  
  I do not know enough about the history of US media cooporations, so I provide some info from old europe.
  
  In Germany for example, the media landscape is defined to the present day by the descisions who got the proper licenses after WW2.
  
  In general, however, the communist and the later succesors, the sozial democrates, had not much public support in the 50s, because of the anti-sovjet hysteria that was dominant in that time.
  The mass media were supporting the conservative parties. The Lefties thus sought for more efficient ways to deliver their message to the people and improve their reputation.
  So they becan to invest in media corporations (newspapers most notably) and founded own publishing houses. The outcome is, that nowadays the sozial-democrates have their fingers in various big newspapers which is profitable and beneficial in terms of media representation.
  
  As I see it, Fox-news is the US- conservatives way of doing the same, and I guess that our conservatives will soon try to engage in similar projects.
  
  It is somewhat difficult to find a good newspaper without any "left-wing" stretching which is not on the level of the "Sun" (if thats a name for you)
  So I personally have suscriptions (correct term?) for 2 newspapers, one of them is the FAZ, a quite renowned paper that is considered conservative. It has some importance outside Germany too, since it is coming from Frankfurt, which is the city where the german stock market is located. You can get it in every big city on the world.
  
  P.S.:
  
  Please excuse the spelling, I'm just coming home from office and I'm tired.

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• Alcapwn &quot;War is the science of destruction&quot; - John Abbot Join Date: 2003-06-21 Member: 17590Members

  January 2005

  <!--QuoteBegin-BathroomMonkey+Jan 31 2005, 01:08 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (BathroomMonkey @ Jan 31 2005, 01:08 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> To switch gears again, looking around, I found a recent example of how the MRC tactfully ignores context when decrying 'bias' at various outlets.
  
  <a href='http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2005/cyb20050117.asp#3' target='_blank'>Senator Kennedy, unopposed!</a>
  
  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->On Fox News Sunday, Brit Hume marveled at how the first Face the Nation, after the CBS panel's report documented the network's hostility to President Bush, devoted the entire show to Senator Ted Kennedy who made a speech earlier in the week railing against Bush policies. Hume noted that the White House offered Communications Director Dan Bartlett "and CBS said, 'thank you, no' -- peculiar behavior for people who were only recently saying they wanted to make a, quote, 'fresh start' with the White House." Schieffer and co-panelist Dan Balz, a Washington Post reporter, tossed a series of softballs to Kennedy, prompting him for his "reaction" to Bush's claims. Balz echoed Senate Democrats: "Given the legal advice that Alberto Gonzales provided that led to some of these [prisoner abuse] scandals, are you going to vote to confirm him or will you oppose him to be the next Attorney General?" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  Of course, it's Fox's Brit Hume leveling the charge. Senator Kennedy, alone! And they gave Dan Bartlett the cold shoulder!
  
  Hmmmm-- let's take a closer look at this.
  
  As CBS Chief Washington Correspondent Bob Scheiffer pointed out on Hannity and Colmes,
  
  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Yes. Dan Bartlett, who is the White House communications chief, <b>was on three broadcasts on Sunday</b>. He was on Meet the Press. He was on FOX News. He was on Wolf Blitzer's show on CNN. And we were asked if we would like him also. <b>Since he was going to be on three other shows, we decided not to do that</b>.
  
  Senator Kennedy, obviously, is the leader of the liberal left. He is going to be a big part of the Washington debate this year. <b>And since -- to be quite honest -- since we had had more Republicans on since the election than we had Democrats, we thought it was a good chance to put Senator Kennedy on</b>.
  
  You know, we're a half-hour broadcast. And I don't think it's necessary every time we have a Democrat on to have a Republican on. I mean, <b>we have had, I think, Senator [Bill] Frist [R-TN] on for the entire show</b>, the Republican leader in the Senate. <b>We have had Secretary of State [Colin] Powell on for the entire broadcast. In one broadcast, we had three Republicans on and didn't have a Democrat</b>.
  <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  And, let's look at their guests in that time span (Again, courtesy of Media Matters):
  
  November 7
  Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA)
  Senator Susan Collins (R-ME)
  Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
  
  November 14
  Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
  Representative Jane Harman (D-CA)
  TIME magazine Washington bureau chief Michael Duffy
  
  November 21
  Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN)
  New York Times columnist David Brooks
  Los Angeles Times staff writer Doyle McManus
  
  November 28
  Author Ron Chernow
  Historian Joseph Ellis
  Author and Washington Post staff writer Bob Woodward
  
  December 5
  Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS)
  Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
  TIME magazine Washington bureau chief Michael Duffy
  
  December 12
  Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
  Former baseball manager Tommy Lasorda
  Author and USA Today columnist Hal Bodley
  New York Daily News columnist Mike Lupica
  Author and ESPN The Magazine senior writer Buster Olney
  
  December 19
  Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
  Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE)
  Senator Jack Reed (D-RI)
  
  December 26
  Senator-elect John Thune (R-SD)
  Senator-elect Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
  Senator-elect Ken Salazar (D-CO)
  
  January 2
  UNICEF executive director Carol Bellamy
  Secretary of State Colin Powell
  
  January 9
  UNICEF executive director Carol Bellamy
  Former Carter national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski
  Former George H.W. Bush and Clinton administration official Dennis Ross
  
  January 16
  Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
  
  Again, selective journalism creates its own reality. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Hm,
  
  La times reporters?
  
  Ny times reporters?
  
  Usa today?
  
  Naw, there not dems <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• BathroomMonkey Feces-hurling Monkey Boy Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 78Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor

  January 2005 edited January 2005

  <!--QuoteBegin-WaterBoy+Jan 31 2005, 09:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (WaterBoy @ Jan 31 2005, 09:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hm,
  
  La times reporters?
  
  Ny times reporters?
  
  Usa today?
  
  Naw, there not dems  <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  You're implying that <a href='http://www.weeklystandard.com/aboutus/bio_brooks.asp' target='_blank'>David Brooks</a> is a Democrat?
  
  And Hal Bodley is a <i>sports</i> columnist for USA Today.

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• BathroomMonkey Feces-hurling Monkey Boy Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 78Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor

  January 2005 edited January 2005

  <!--QuoteBegin-Marine0I+Jan 31 2005, 12:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine0I @ Jan 31 2005, 12:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Marine0I+Jan 31 2005, 02:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Marine0I @ Jan 31 2005, 02:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
  
  Most damning was this - a statistical survey by scientists attempting to dispel the concept of a liberal media. Their results seemed quite good, and definately lined up with what I had suspected. They found that journalists were to the right of the general population in economic matters, and to the left of them in social matters. I believe this is because large media corporations owned by rich and powerful men dont take to kindly to suggestions of tearing down the bourgeois, but have a distinct leftwing view on social issues.
  
  <a href='http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html' target='_blank'>Examining the Liberal Media claim</a>
  
  <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Well, specifically, here's the executive summary they provide:
  
  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The conservative critique of the news media rests on two general propositions: (1) journalists' views are to the left of the public, and (2) journalists frame news content in a way that accentuates these left perspectives. Previous research has revealed persuasive evidence against the latter claim, but the validity of the former claim has often been taken for granted. This research project examined the supposed left orientation of media personnel by surveying Washington-based journalists who cover national politics and/or economic policy at US outlets.
  
  The findings include:
  
  On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.
  
  <b>Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation</b>.
  
  The <b><i>minority</i></b> of journalists who do not identify with the "center" are more likely to identify with the "right" when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the "left" when it comes to social issues.
  
  Journalists report that "business-oriented news outlets" and "major daily newspapers" provide the highest quality coverage of economic policy issues, while "broadcast network TV news" and "cable news services" provide the worst. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  Note- it's not that they are predominately left on social issues and right on economic issues-- it's the <i>minority</i> who don't define themselves as centrists who break that way.
  
  And further:
  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The larger "liberal media" myth has been maintained, in part, by the well-funded flow of conservative rhetoric that selectively highlights journalists' personal views while downplaying news content</b>. It also has been maintained by diverting the spotlight away from economic issues and placing it instead on social issues. In reality, though, most members of the powerful Washington press corps identify themselves as centrist in both of these areas. It is true, as conservative critics have publicized, that the minority of journalists not in the "center" are more likely to identify as having a "left" orientation when it comes to social issues. However, it is also true that the minority of journalists not in the "center" are more likely to identify as having a "right" orientation when it comes to economic issues. Indeed, these economic policy views are often to the right of public opinion. When our attention is drawn to this fact, one of the central elements of the conservative critique of the media is exposed to be merely sleight of hand.
  
  This illusion has not been exposed here merely to replace it with an equally false mirror image of the conservative critique. Painting journalists as the core of the "conservative media" does not do justice to the complexity of the situation. Like many profit-sector professionals journalists tend to hold "liberal" social views and "conservative" economic views. <b>Most of all, though, they can be broadly described as centrists</b>. This adherence to the middle is consistent with news outlets that tend to repeat conventional wisdom and ignore serious alternative analyses. This too often leaves citizens with policy "debates" grounded in the shared assumptions of those in positions of power.
  <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  I <i>don't</i> think this study really helps to support your theory of liberal media 'dominance'.

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• Wheeee Join Date: 2003-02-18 Member: 13713Members, Reinforced - Shadow

  January 2005

  Didn't we have a topic on this a while back?
  
  And the media is biased, although I think usually they try to at least make it appear that they're not.

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• Deus_Ex_Machina Join Date: 2004-07-01 Member: 29674Members

  January 2005

  OMG COMMUNIST MEDIA COSPIRACY!!!1one
  
  Wow, so the media likes to bash the president, that's new. It's not like it's happened to every president or something.
  
  Apparently what the "liberal media" has to say can't be that efficacious in turning the people against the poor oppressed conservatives, I mean, just look at presidents from the last 20 years.
  
  In any case, there's no reason to get worked up about this, the news generally sucks, and Americans can;t be paying too much attention when something like 75% of Americans couldn't find Baghdad on a map. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• SkulkBait Join Date: 2003-02-11 Member: 13423Members

  February 2005

  <!--QuoteBegin-Deus Ex Machina+Jan 31 2005, 11:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Deus Ex Machina @ Jan 31 2005, 11:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> OMG COMMUNIST MEDIA COSPIRACY!!!1one
  
  Wow, so the media likes to bash the president, that's new. It's not like it's happened to every president or something.
  
  Apparently what the "liberal media" has to say can't be that efficacious in turning the people against the poor oppressed conservatives, I mean, just look at presidents from the last 20 years.
  
  In any case, there's no reason to get worked up about this, the news generally sucks, and Americans can;t be paying too much attention when something like 75% of Americans couldn't find Baghdad on a map. <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
  Hey now give us a break. I mean Iraq is pretty easy so theres no excuse for that one, but Baghdad?

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• Euoplocephalus Join Date: 2003-02-21 Member: 13811Members

  February 2005

  I think this issue is mainly a case of the grass is greener on the otherside of the fence. If you are of any political ideal (lets say conservative) other than being a true moderate there will be more of opinions that are "liberal" in comparision to your idelogy than there will be opinions that are "conservative " to you. The farther you go to eitehr side, the more this will seem to be the case.
  
  There probably is some "bias" in the media. Journalists are naught but humans, and humans are never truely impartial, no matter how much they try. I doubt, however, you could possibly find a strong bias eitehr way if you look over a long enough period of time. When things are happening in the world more the way the left say it is, the more liberal "bias" there will seem to be. The same for when events corespond to the coservative version fo events. We all see the world through our own filters, and if you are able to acknowlege that, though changing it is probably damn near impossible, most arguments along the lines of "conservative vs. liberal" seem a lot less meaningful. Neither is, was, or will ever be, one hunderd percent right.

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• Wheeee Join Date: 2003-02-18 Member: 13713Members, Reinforced - Shadow

  February 2005

  I blame the colleges and universities. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• Spacer Invented dogs Join Date: 2003-05-02 Member: 16008Members

  February 2005

  Maybe there're more liberal people in the media... because there just are?
  I think you should perhaps recognise that in order to get a job in the media industry, you need to be able to... write compelling newspaper stories or TV News Bulletins, rather than be of a specific political "wing".

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• Marine0I Join Date: 2002-11-14 Member: 8639Members, Constellation

  February 2005 edited February 2005

  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I didn't and I <i>should</i> have specified that it was for a specific range of coverage-- obviously, if you look at the chart, it isn't for a very extended period of time-- but the point still stands.  Our news outlets shouldn't ever have cause to shed their 'objectivity'.  There wasn't even anything remotlely resembling <i>balance</i>.  It wouldn't have been appropriate to overload with coverage with people from the opposite side of the spectrum-- but <i>balancing</i> the voices certainly wouldn't have hurt the coverage.  This was one of the most important dates of the year-- and they drop their 'bias' and go all the way in the other direction?  That's hardly activism.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  Fair enough - but I deny that the new stations should have balanced it out. Im not pretending its fair or balanced, but its a conservative celebration. Its not really one of the most important dates of the year as I see it, that date passed on the election, this date just officiates it. I would not like to see bitter conservative commentators after a Kerry win, and I would not feel slighted in the leasted if few made an appearance.
  
  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Like Kerry's non-affair?  Swift Boat Vets? Dan Rather's botched reporting?  Yeah, most outlets swept those recent stories <i>right</i> under the rug.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  I didnt say under the rug - I said they would harp on it for about a week, then it would trail off unless it had something new and exciting to report. For a textbook example of same old same old for weeks on end - Abu Grahib. I met nothing new in the subsequent 2 weeks plus of harping that I didnt know from the first 5 minutes I heard about it.
  
  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'll post some of the finer examples when I have time-- but if you've heard that Gore claimed to invent the internet, then you've heard one of them.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  I've heard the Gore soundbite, it was used to attack MM's lame attempts to make GWB look like a sneering rich man in F9/11 - at the same dinner he made the joke about inventing the internet, Bush made a joke about the haves and the havemores. I didnt realise that had been used against him - seemed mildly amusing and all for a good cause <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
  
  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You mean, until they do it and the conservative <i>accepts</i>?  I mean, come on! 
  1: "This paper has a liberal bias!"
  2: "Er . . we just offered you a position which would be central to combating that perceived liberal slant."
  1: [sulking]"Uh  . . . . I Didn't want it."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  Rubbish. If they'd done it, I'd be cheering. Given that its just some "insider" ie anyone from the cleaning lady to the CEO who says the boss offered a man who had clearly come to an end of his career and was about to retire - it doesnt look that convincing. Thirdhand information from the ever-suspect insider. I dont see much to get excited about here.
  
  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Before we get started here, I should define my position better.  I have no doubt that there exists bias of all shades in reporting-- journalists are, after all, human.  However, the whole systematic, nefarious shadowy liberal media controlled cabal is quite ludicrous. 
  <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  Absolutely. There is no vast left wing conspiracy in the media. That's why information criticism Clinton got published, thats why Swift Vet's got heard. Its not the USSR. However, as your not so trusted MRC correct stated:
  
  Liberal bias in the news media is a reality. It is not the result of a vast left-wing conspiracy; journalists do not meet secretly to plot how to slant their news reports. But everyday pack journalism often creates an unconscious "groupthink" mentality that taints news coverage and allows only one side of a debate to receive a fair hearing. When that happens, the truth suffers. That is why it is so important news media reports be politically balanced, not biased.
  
  Big stories that cant be taken two ways, or can be taken in one way that is waaaayyyy more interesting get reported as you would expect. The day to day news, reports on Iraq, reports on Israel, abortion, homosexuality get a distinct leftwing slant reflective of the reporters/editors bias.
  
  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And, I think if you're going to pursue the fact that outlets have a liberal slant, then conservatives turning down positions at those outlets means that they bear some of the blame as well.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  If he did get the offer and he turned it down, then Im disappointed - but a man doesnt retire at age 70+ because the idea of more work is thrilling him to tears.
  
  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ah, 'Bias' and Bernie Goldberg.  I'll have to relate the story where Bernie Goldberg got schooled by Al Franken because he was simply cribbing his 'liberal bias' quotes from the MRC, and on live TV, when asked to provide context for one, he couldn't.  Franken <i>could</i>, the story actually had an opposite slant than then one described, and Bernie looked like a fool.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  I use quotes from the MRC without knowing the full context because I trust that they are giving them to me in context. If any of my quotes are actually out of context, then please, let me know. I dont support quote distortion.
  
  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ok, but this is an odd point to make-- if you're going to use this to demonstrate that there's a social bias, then ipso facto you're proving that there's a conservative bias to reporting of the broad category of 'economy'.  So to take this and then say, "See?  There's a liberal bias" is only telling <i>half</i> of the story.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  I dont consider economics half the story - unless you believe a full 50% of all newsreporting involves economics, at which I would be shocked. I'd be suprised if we managed to put 1/3 of the news under economics. And I'd have to agree - news reports about the economy are definately rightslanted. Since the fall of communism and the wideranging benefits of free market economy have become apparent, liberal economics has taken an absolute pounding. Rich men own media corporations, and journalists arent all that badly off themselves. I have no doubt they subscribe to conservative theories, and this carries itself through to their reporting.
  
  Having witnessed this myself, it makes it all the more obvious to me that reports frequently take their own bias and interject it into their reporting. The journalist population stands to the right on business matters, and as such reports to the right. The journalist population stands to the left on social issues, and as such reports to the left. Social issues dominate the media far more than economic issues, which are levelled at a narrower audience.
  
  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Well, specifically, here's the executive summary they provide:<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  I've read the entire thing, as well as the summary, and thats what convinced me that liberals had pretty much given up pretending they didnt outnumber conservatives.
  
  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.</b>
  
  The <i>minority</i> of journalists who do not identify with the "center" are more likely to identify with the "right" when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the "left" when it comes to social issues.  <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  Sounds pretty impressive doesnt it? Its not. I knew stat1201 wouldnt be wasted. Lets review the numbers shall we?
  
  Q#22. On social issues, how would you characterize your political orientation? Q#23. On economic issues, how would you characterize your political orientation?
  <!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->
  Social                Economic
  Left 30%      Left 11%
  Center 57%   Center 64%
  Right 9%      Right 19%
  <!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
  
  Analysis: In cases like this where the respondant is asked to describe themselves, you can be statistically confident that of those who describe themselves as centrist, they will actually form a bell curve with 50% tending more to the right of centre compared with the total centrists, and %50 tending more to the left than the others. This is of course based around the assumption that these journalists are randomly distributed, that there is no overall trend or skewing of the data that would lead more to tend one way than the other. Given the vast outnumbering of solid left compared to solid right on social issues, I'd say this is a <b>very</b> generous assumption for liberals on social matters, and a <b>very</b> generous assumption for conservatives on economic matters. So lets split the centrists.
  
  <!--c1--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>CODE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'><!--ec1-->Social                  Economic
  Left 30%                        Left 11%
  Tending Left 28%            Tending Left 32%
  Tending Right 29%          Tending Right 32%
  Right 9%                        Right 19%
  Other 5%                  Other 5%
  <!--c2--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--ec2-->
  
  So for the social issues, we have 58% of journalists on the left hand side, with more than half solidly left. The solidly left outnumber the solidly right three times over. We have 38% on the right hand side, with a mere 9% solidly right, and three times that amount only leaning that way. So, not only are the majority of journalists leaning left, but of those that are, the majority are hard leftists. Of the minority of journalists that tend right, the minority are hard rightists - a minority of a minority. That is a clear, distinctly skewed and uneven distribution of political orientation for our reporting body on social issues.
  
  On the economic front, we have 43% tending left, with only a third of those tending left solidly leftist. We have 51% tending right, with only 2/3's of those solidly rightist. It cannot be ignored that these journalists on the whole are to the right of the public, so many of those tending left would still be percieved by joe average of right bias, but the figures speak for themselves, it is vastly more balanced than social reporting.
  
  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
  I don't think this study really helps to support your theory of liberal media 'dominance'.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  I honestly think it does, and I think it does so <b>strongly</b> This is why I used that article in support of my argument - it is attempting to attack the liberal media claim, and while it does make some very valid points about conservative economic reporting, it also demonstrates how extreme liberal thought is in social issues, and how less extreme the conservative bias in economic thought.

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• BathroomMonkey Feces-hurling Monkey Boy Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 78Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor

  February 2005 edited February 2005

  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
  Fair enough - but I deny that the new stations should have balanced it out. Im not pretending its fair or balanced, but its a conservative celebration. Its not really one of the most important dates of the year as I see it, that date passed on the election, this date just officiates it. I would not like to see bitter conservative commentators after a Kerry win, and I would not feel slighted in the leasted if few made an appearance.
  <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  I'd consider the president's inaguaration speech a pretty significant event-- especially considering that this was the first wartime inaguaration in decades. It's when he ostensibly sets the tone for his coming term-- and it should be subject to a pretty robust analysis by the press. When you have one side falling over themselves to praise it, it's hard to look at it objectively (especially when you have people like the WaPo's Charles Krauthammer glorifying the speech on Fox News without disclosing that he had <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A27672-2005Jan21?language=printer' target='_blank'>helped write it</a>).
  
  I wouldn't want to see reflexively bitter commentators after a Kerry win, but I'd certainly like to hear some objective comments from the other side about his speech. I'm sure there are enough people on both sides of the press who could rise above petty jealousy and give an honest assessment.
  
  And since when is the press supposed to relax its objectivity for a <a href='http://sg1.allmusic.com/cg/smp.dll?link=qg3nd7hu9vk3c1d0um9ixhc&r=20.asx' target='_blank'>celebration</a>?
  
  
  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I didnt say under the rug - I said they would harp on it for about a week, then it would trail off unless it had something new and exciting to report. For a textbook example of same old same old for weeks on end - Abu Grahib. I met nothing new in the subsequent 2 weeks plus of harping that I didnt know from the first 5 minutes I heard about it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  I wouldn't attribute this to bias; I would blame sensationalism, and the fact that the pictures leaked out. <b>That</b> turned it into quite a visceral affair. On the other side of the coin, there was the Jessica Lynch affair. The more the press romanticized that story, the more prominently they could feature it (and, of course, when <i>that</i> had run its course, they generated a <i>new</i> storyline about all the misconceptions they had been pounding into our skulls over the course of the previous weeks).
  
  And what about, say, Gary Condit and Chondra Levy? Again, our press has a tendency to fixate, because they need a long story arc to keep people coming back. Just ask Scott Peterson.
  
  Re: Gore, a lot of stories were circulated to make him look like an arrogant braggart at best, and a complete liar at worst. You can look up specifics <a href='http://www.issues2000.org/askme/internet.htm' target='_blank'>here</a> and <a href='http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/_/id/5920188?rnd=1107273691546&has-player=true&version=6.0.11.847' target='_blank'>here</a> (I've just skimmed the latter, but it looks like it should have most of the info, if not a slightly exaggerated headline).
  
  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Rubbish. If they'd done it, I'd be cheering. Given that its just some "insider" ie anyone from the cleaning lady to the CEO who says the boss offered a man who had clearly come to an end of his career and was about to retire - it doesnt look that convincing. Thirdhand information from the ever-suspect insider. I dont see much to get excited about here.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  It's not outside the realm of possibility and completely without merit . . . I <i>sincerely</i> doubt the Hill would publish an item from the cleaning lady <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
  
  And am I the only one that found it interesting that someone assumed David Brooks was liberal just because he wrote for the Times? Again, perception aids reality.
  
  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I dont consider economics half the story - unless you believe a full 50% of all newsreporting involves economics, at which I would be shocked. I'd be suprised if we managed to put 1/3 of the news under economics.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  'Economics' isn't that slim-- and it isn't just private sector. For example, the administration's economic policies are being analyzed and reported by these journalists-- and that includes Social Security Privatization (note, a term outlets are taking the administration's cue and dropping, due to its negative connotations), tax cuts, budgeting, et al. It's not just confined to the business section of the paper.
  
  More later, back to work . . .

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• Crisqo Join Date: 2002-12-30 Member: 11625Members

  February 2005

  <a href='http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\\Nation\\archive\\200501\\NAT20050120d.html' target='_blank'>ABC News</a>
  
  Yeah well, ABC did something they probably shouldn't have. Darn your "balance" ABC! Darn you Jennings!
  
  I got this next piece from America (The Book)
  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Given human fallibility, is objective reporting ever possible? Phrase your answer without indicating a bias toward one point of view or the other.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  I mean, sure newspapers and cable news shows COULD give you "just the facts and let you decide what to make of them," but i'd imagine that doesn't get much attention as it is "boring." I mean, I know I wouldn't watch as much MSNBC if they weren't giving me opinions of whats happening.
  
  If you're tired of liberal media, balance it out with some Rush Limbaugh. It's what I do.

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome
• BathroomMonkey Feces-hurling Monkey Boy Join Date: 2002-01-25 Member: 78Members, Retired Developer, NS1 Playtester, Contributor

  February 2005 edited February 2005

  <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Jan. 19, 2005</b> - For a possible Inauguration Day story on ABC News, we are trying to find out if there (sic) any military funerals for Iraq war casualties scheduled for <b>Thursday, Jan. 20</b>. If you know a funeral and whether the family might be willing to talk to ABC News, please fill out the form below<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
  
  Not to get all conspiracy-ish, but . . .
  
  So on the day <i>before</i> they're going to cover this piece, they decide to use the very efficient and streamlined method of randomly soliciting information leading to their subject material on the internet, with a hastily written, grammatically poor ad? Rather than, you know, taking an hour or so to figure out which soldiers have been killed recently enough to have a funeral on that particular day, and contacting them in private?
  
  Something don't smell right . . .
  
  (And what's with the two submit and reset buttons?)

  0 Off Topic Disagree Agree Awesome