Even More Examples of Liberal Media Bias (1 Viewer)

[aquapub]

1) As the Media Research Center points out, it took the networks a week to even mention the 2nd most powerful Democrat-Durbin-equating Guantanamo Bay to Hitler's death camps and Pol Pot's genocidal reign of terror and they didn't even mention it until they had to because Durbin was publicly apologizing. (and CBS STILL didn't run the story!)

Then, when Carl Rove recently made a factually accurate characterization of the left's priorities after 9/11 (They DID place their priorities on the "rights" of the terrorists, They DID vehemently oppose the Patriot Act, they DID protest the toppling of Muslim terror-sponsors, and they DID often argue that America deserved it-OK, as liberal pundits even admitted, RIGHT after 9/11, liberals feigned patriotism just long enough to avoid being disowned by the mainstream, but they still reverted to their usual anti-American rhetoric), all three networks ran it as a front line story within HOURS of the speech!

"Nothing more needs to be said about the motives of the [media]!"



2) Here is a nauseating outrage from MSNBC's liberal propagandist (though advertised as an "objective journalist," not as an "opinion journalist" by MSNBC, like their conservative commentator, Joe Scarborough). This was taken straight from the MRC website:


MSNBC's Countdown, which didn't touch Senator **** Durbin's allegation until a night after his apology, but on Thursday immediately jumped on Karl Rove's criticism of how liberals reacted to the 9/11 attacks, delivered another round of invective on Friday night. Alison Stewart had filled in on Thursday for Keith Olbermann, but he was back Friday and brought aboard a psychiatrist to discuss actor Tom Cruise's attack on the profession. He snidely asked: "Any idea if Tom Cruise or Karl Rove might be hoping that they say something so outrageous about therapy that somebody who cares about them might try an intervention to force them into therapy?" Olbermann also worried: "Lastly, could Mr. Rove's references have been more damaging even than the Cruise interview because he essentially associated therapy with weakness?" Olbermann later brought aboard a 9/11 widow to denounce Rove as Olbermann castigated him for his "smugness" and ruminated: "I was living in the United States of America on 9/11 and the months of bipartisanship that followed it. Where in the heck do you suppose Karl Rove was at that time?"


Please, someone tell me how this is not flagrant media bias?



3) Newsweek is, by every measuring scale and by every method attempted, consistently rated as the very most biased left-wing publication in the "mainstream" American press. Here is what Evan Thomas of Newsweek said in relation to our tax dollars being used to perpetuate liberal propaganda on NPR:

Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas wondered, on Inside Washington over the weekend, whether the effort in the U.S. House to reduce funding for NPR through the CPB would "make NPR a little less liberal?" An indignant Nina Totenberg of NPR retorted: "I don't think we're liberal to begin with and I think if you would listen, Evan, you would know that." Thomas countered that "I do listen to you and you're not that liberal, but you're a little bit liberal." Totenberg insisted, "I don't think that's a fair criticism...any more than you would say that Newsweek is liberal." To which Thomas conceded: "I think Newsweek is a little liberal."

 

[quarterback7]

I'm not 'liberal', but I will say that you are far off in your view of media bias. To question one's patriotism because they oppose the Patriot Act, (a legitimate political position) and say that the left is un-American, and the reaction to 9/11 was feigned, is as much bias as I've seen all day, to be honest.

 

[Pacridge]

1) As the Media Research Center points out, it took the networks a week to even mention the 2nd most powerful Democrat-Durbin-equating Guantanamo Bay to Hitler's death camps and Pol Pot's genocidal reign of terror and they didn't even mention it until they had to because Durbin was publicly apologizing. (and CBS STILL didn't run the story!)

Then, when Carl Rove recently made a factually accurate characterization of the left's priorities after 9/11 (They DID place their priorities on the "rights" of the terrorists, They DID vehemently oppose the Patriot Act, they DID protest the toppling of Muslim terror-sponsors, and they DID often argue that America deserved it-OK, as liberal pundits even admitted, RIGHT after 9/11, liberals feigned patriotism just long enough to avoid being disowned by the mainstream, but they still reverted to their usual anti-American rhetoric), all three networks ran it as a front line story within HOURS of the speech!

"Nothing more needs to be said about the motives of the [media]!"



2) Here is a nauseating outrage from MSNBC's liberal propagandist (though advertised as an "objective journalist," not as an "opinion journalist" by MSNBC, like their conservative commentator, Joe Scarborough). This was taken straight from the MRC website:


MSNBC's Countdown, which didn't touch Senator **** Durbin's allegation until a night after his apology, but on Thursday immediately jumped on Karl Rove's criticism of how liberals reacted to the 9/11 attacks, delivered another round of invective on Friday night. Alison Stewart had filled in on Thursday for Keith Olbermann, but he was back Friday and brought aboard a psychiatrist to discuss actor Tom Cruise's attack on the profession. He snidely asked: "Any idea if Tom Cruise or Karl Rove might be hoping that they say something so outrageous about therapy that somebody who cares about them might try an intervention to force them into therapy?" Olbermann also worried: "Lastly, could Mr. Rove's references have been more damaging even than the Cruise interview because he essentially associated therapy with weakness?" Olbermann later brought aboard a 9/11 widow to denounce Rove as Olbermann castigated him for his "smugness" and ruminated: "I was living in the United States of America on 9/11 and the months of bipartisanship that followed it. Where in the heck do you suppose Karl Rove was at that time?"


Please, someone tell me how this is not flagrant media bias?



3) Newsweek is, by every measuring scale and by every method attempted, consistently rated as the very most biased left-wing publication in the "mainstream" American press. Here is what Evan Thomas of Newsweek said in relation to our tax dollars being used to perpetuate liberal propaganda on NPR:

Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas wondered, on Inside Washington over the weekend, whether the effort in the U.S. House to reduce funding for NPR through the CPB would "make NPR a little less liberal?" An indignant Nina Totenberg of NPR retorted: "I don't think we're liberal to begin with and I think if you would listen, Evan, you would know that." Thomas countered that "I do listen to you and you're not that liberal, but you're a little bit liberal." Totenberg insisted, "I don't think that's a fair criticism...any more than you would say that Newsweek is liberal." To which Thomas conceded: "I think Newsweek is a little liberal."

Interesting. Not true but interesting. I watch CBS and they most cetianly did "run" the story. The first time they ran the story he was quoted as saying he wouldn't appologize. Several days later they pointed out he did appologize and that contradicted what he orginally stated. Heres a link to the story on their web site.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/21/politics/main703383_page2.shtml

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I would love for the Right Wingers who consistently “work the refs” by screaming liberal bias to produce even one independent study that found such widespread liberal bias. Not, anecdotal data, but an actual independent study that shows a liberal bias in the media. To my knowledge, one does not exist. In fact, every single study I have ever read on the matter seemed to find if anything a strong right wing bias in the opinionated media and a bias in the rest of the media towards citing right wing think tanks like CATO and the Heritage Foundation over liberal thing tanks.

Note: By independent study, I mean something like a University Study, not some bogus study released by the Fundie funded “Media Research Center”.

 

[quarterback7]

I agree. I see much more bias watching FOX than I ever do watching CBS. Screaming bias is one way the right tries to discredit harmful journalism. It's pretty obvious to any observer.

 

[argexpat]

Ah yes, the ol' "liberal bias" canard.

A few questions:

1. Is there such a thing as conservative media bias?

2. Is it bias per se that irks you, or just the supposed liberal kind?

3. Have you defined what you mean by “liberal,” “media” and “bias”?

4. Has it occurred to you that “the media” comprises scores of rich, powerful corporations spanning print, TV, radio (dominated by right-wing blowhards), film, and now the internet, who produce a product, which is sold in the capitalist free market?

5. If “the media” does indeed have a “liberal bias,” can you explain why the capitalist plutocrats who own these media corporations would want to promote a liberal agenda (increased regulation and taxes, stronger unions, curbing corporate power, etc.) which would seem to run contrary to their interests? Are they just stupid?

6. Is your evidence for this alleged liberal bias purely anecdotal, or can you prove systematic, institutionalized, industry-wide media bias?

7. Isn’t bias in the eye of the beholder, and thus ultimately unprovable? Fox News seems biased to me, but they claim to be fair and balanced---who's right?

8. Isn’t the charge of liberal bias simply unfounded claptrap meant to deflect justified and necessary criticism of the Republican party?

9. Isn't your charge of liberal bias simply a mindless parroting of Dittohead marching orders?

There is a liberal media, but the media is not liberal. Remember, "the media" is the corporate media. If you don't like it, you just don't like capitalism.

 

[teacher]

Here is one I remember from long ago. Peter Jennings reporting. Today ultra right wing Conservative Newt Gingrich bla bla bla.....In other news Senator Ted Kennedy bla bla bla....Not Speaker of the House Newt....or....Ultra left wing liberal Ted. This is not biased how? Just the facts Mame.

 

[Squawker]

Book review for Bernard Goldbergs book, “Liberal Bias.” He is a Liberal reporter telling it like it is.

In his three decades as a reporter and producer at CBS, Goldberg repeatedly voiced his concerns to network executives about the often one-sided nature of the news coverage. But no one listened to his complaints -- or if they did listen, they did nothing about the problem. Finally, Goldberg had no choice but to blow the whistle on his own industry, to break the code of silence that pervades the news business. Bias is the result.
As the author reveals, "liberal bias" doesn't mean simply being hard on Republicans and easy on Democrats. Real media bias is the result of how those in the media see the world -- and their bias directly affects how we all see the world.

Source

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Book review for Bernard Goldbergs book, “Liberal Bias.” He is a Liberal reporter telling it like it is.

Source

Bernard Goldberg is not a liberal, he is an avowed conservative. Moreover, much of his book was discredited.

Like I say, if there truely is bias, why do the right wingers not have one independent study to show the bias?

 

[Squawker]

Bernard Goldberg is not a liberal, he is an avowed conservative. Moreover, much of his book was discredited.

That's interesting, I haven't heard that before -- do you have a link please?

 

[akyron]

Bernard Goldberg is not a liberal, he is an avowed conservative. Moreover, much of his book was discredited.

Like I say, if there truely is bias, why do the right wingers not have one independent study to show the bias?

John Hawkins: Just because I know people will claim that you're conservative because you're criticizing the media, could you tell us what your ideology is?

Bernard Goldberg: "The reason they do that John is so I'll be automatically marginalized. I wrote in "Bias" that I would make racial discrimination a criminal offense, not just a civil offense. On gay rights, I don't know anyone more Libertarian than me. I don't want the government getting involved in it. I'm pro-abortion with reservations. I've never set foot in a country club in my life.

I consider myself to be an old-fashioned liberal. I'm a liberal the way liberals used to be when they were like John F. Kennedy and when they were like Hubert Humphrey. When they were upbeat and enthusiastic and mainstream. I am not a liberal the way liberals are today at least as exemplified by Al Franken and Michael Moore, where they're angry, nasty, closed minded, & not mainstream, but fringe.

The media elites are upset because Fox even exists! They liked it when it was ABC, NBC, & CBS and that was it. Now here comes this upstart, not only grabbing viewers, not only having this conservative attitude, but they're calling themselves, "Fair and Balanced". "That implies that we're not fair and balanced!" So they hate Fox in that respect. They hate them not because they can point to 20 examples of bias, but because they're even there. ...They don't like the fact that there's a Rush Limbaugh out there, they don't like the fact that there's a Fox News, they don't like the fact that there's a Matt Drudge. They liked it when it was nice, when it was just the three of them. Well, it ain't that way anymore.

I have not seen anything on the book being discredited in any way but I will keep looking. I see some generalized outrage but thats it."



I am still not sure why we care. It is all sensationalism which is what sells. The only news that is fair and balanced is news that has NO commercials.
Anyone that watches even a couple of times knows Fox leans a little right and the rest lean a little left. Yes NPR leans left at times but they are more middle of the road than the rest from what I have seen and heard.

 

[teacher]

I'm confused. Are the libs on this thread saying there is only right wing bias? All other outlets are completely objective? Kind makes this point not worth arguing with that mentality. Let me put it like this folks. There is all kinds of bias out there on both sides. If you can't recognize that then your unworthy of debate.

 

[faminedynasty]

I consider myself to be an old-fashioned liberal. I'm a liberal the way liberals used to be when they were like John F. Kennedy and when they were like Hubert Humphrey. When they were upbeat and enthusiastic and mainstream. I am not a liberal the way liberals are today at least as exemplified by Al Franken and Michael Moore, where they're angry, nasty, closed minded, & not mainstream, but fringe.

I think there's a problem with your argument. I think that John F. Kennedy was more mainstream in 1963 because all in all there was a good solid portion of the political climate was more tollerant of leftism at the time. If John F. Kennedy were alive, in today's right-wing reactionary political climate he would be on an extreme fringe. Or God forbid his brother Bobby. Fox news would specifically hire anchors to call him a communist 6 hours a day. And you would be talking about how you were an FDR liberal, not a Kennedy. But you'd have a problem there too, because FDR was far more socially radical than most of his modern day counterparts. I've heard this argument before it was...who was it...Bill O'reilly, talking about how he likes liberals, just the mainstream reasonable ones, like Bobby Kennedy. Bobby Kennedy was his favorite liberal. Bobby Kennedy would despise everything that a biggot like Bill O'reilly says. He would destroy him.
Also, I don't hate the fact that Fox news exists, I am not threatened by it. It's a kind of cute make-believe news for people to the right of Hitler. But it seems to me that besides PBS and the BBC, there is very little mainstream liberal media. There certainly isn't any mainstream media as liberal as the Kennedy's. And you speak as if ABC, CBS, and NBC are the mainstays of liberal propaganda, but the vast majority of their sources are rich, white, republican males. And on top of that, all of these are owned by elite multi-national corporations. Elite corporations do not like policies that threaten their status as...well...elite corporations. As long as the news is corporate owned, it is on some level inherently conservative.

 

[akyron]

I think there's a problem with your argument.

Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat
"Bernard Goldberg is not a liberal, he is an avowed conservative. Moreover, much of his book was discredited."



"I consider myself to be an old-fashioned liberal." ---Bernard Goldberg


Actually Mr. Goldberg is a self proclaimed avowed liberal and I have yet to find anything discrediting his book.
The only news that is fair and balanced is news that has NO commercials.



That was my argument. Perhaps you took Mr. Goldbergs statements as my own.

 

[Billo_Really]

Instead of hearing about the death in Darfur, we get bombarded by the blonde in Aruba.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Originally Posted by SouthernDemocrat
"Bernard Goldberg is not a liberal, he is an avowed conservative. Moreover, much of his book was discredited."



"I consider myself to be an old-fashioned liberal." ---Bernard Goldberg


Actually Mr. Goldberg is a self proclaimed avowed liberal and I have yet to find anything discrediting his book.
The only news that is fair and balanced is news that has NO commercials.



That was my argument. Perhaps you took Mr. Goldbergs statements as my own.

My apologies, he is a social liberal. :roll:

At any rate, the man offers no independent studies to back up his claim of widespread liberal bias. You can’t prove anything with anecdotal evidence alone (a concept completely foreign to today’s crop of right wingers). Especially when it is as subjective as trying to show bias in media. Eric Alterman’s wrote a book entitled “What Liberal Media?”. In it he makes a very persuasive argument that conservatives dominate the mainstream media and unlike Goldberg or Coulter, Alterman actually documents and sources all of his claims (Coulter does provide footnotes, but seldom do her sources actually say what she says they say) . Of course, being that he did not commission an independent study either, his book proves nothing either as in the end its still only anecdotal evidence.

Like I wrote earlier, if there is such widespread liberal bias in the media, why is there no independent studies that show the bias?

 

[Stherngntlmn]

Like I say, if there truely is bias, why do the right wingers not have one independent study to show the bias?

http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp

and you know a lot of them only said 'other' so as not to show their leftist bias

Yeah... there's No leftist bias in the media at all

 

[Stherngntlmn]

the facts are now liberal in your opinion.

No, the facts are objective. the slant the media uses to prioritize, report, and give perspective on stories.... is liberal.

 

[Billo_Really]

You don't see this anywhere on any news. This not what I call balanced...

"In pursuit of their agenda of empire, the Bush and Blair blatantly ignored the massive opposition to the war expressed by millions of people around the world. They embarked upon one of the most unjust, immoral, and cowardly wars in history."

"The imposition of the UN sanctions in 1991 caused untold suffering and thousands of deaths. The situation has worsened after the occupation. At least 100,000 civilians have been killed; 60,000 are being held in US custody in inhuman conditions, without charges; thousands have disappeared; and torture has become virtually routine."

PRELIMINARY DECLARATION OF THE JURY OF CONSCIENCE WORLD TRIBUNAL ON IRAQ – ISTANBUL 23RD -27TH JUNE 2005
27 Jun 2005

...what do we get here? Abu Graib pictures...outrage...Rumsfield's illusion of concern...GITMO OK...isolated cases...back to business as usual. And you don't hear this at all...

"The Anglo-American occupation of Iraq of the last 27 months has led to the destruction and devastation of the Iraqi state and society. Law and order have broken down completely, resulting in a pervasive lack of human security; the physical infrastructure is in shambles; the health care delivery system is a mess; the education system has ceased to function; there is massive environmental and ecological devastation; and, the cultural and archeological heritage of the Iraqi people has been desecrated."

Anyone who as been to college, has taken psycology 101, is familiar with the term "projection", and why it is used. Conservative right use this with zeal and fervor as much as they can. What they don't understand is, this doesn't work with educated people (unless their educated pu$$y's). Did you notice the blue states were the ones that were the most developed, modern and had the most electoral votes per state. Because intelligence and education resides there.

 

[Schweddy]

What about on the other side of the coin?

Which of these would actually get air time?

* 50 Insurgents arested or killed today
* 2 Americans died in suicide bomb attack?

To be factual it should be both...

 

[Billo_Really]

I don't hear any (alleged) liberal media talking about maybe these insurgents, are not insurgents. But rather, Iraqi's that object to the illegal occupation of their country by an aggressor nation. For which, according to International Law, they have every right to resist!

I haven't heard word one about the possibility of THIS!

 

[Schweddy]

We rarely hear the good stuff like a new hospitol that marines helped assemble or electrity systems upgraded.

You know, the other stuff that we are really doing over there now.

Since normally liberals do not like the war, why would a liberal station actually put that type of news on the air?

 

[Pacridge]

We rarely hear the good stuff like a new hospitol that marines helped assemble or electrity systems upgraded.

You know, the other stuff that we are really doing over there now.

Since normally liberals do not like the war, why would a liberal station actually put that type of news on the air?

There some truth too that. I often wonder why? To some degree I think it could be that good news isn't news. The old "if it bleeds it leads" mentality. Even here in the US how much of the news is "good news?" I do hear some stories about the positive stuff our troops are doing over there but it's only a small percentage of the coverage. Back in March I started a concerted effort to see how many positive stories I could find. They're out there, though face it they're not on page one. After checking around it dawned on me to check out FNC. They obviously support this admin. and the war. I figured who better to turn to for good news in Iraq. Sure enough they had some stuff on the web site and on air. In almost ever story, at some point, they'd have a disclaimer something to the effect- "you're not going to hear this in the mainstream liberal press." I had no problems finding like stories in the mainstream media.

So I don't know what causes the lack of positive stories. Most likely it's a combination of several factors. One may well be that the media doesn't like Bush much and therefore isn't too quick to point out things that he's done that worked out positively. I don't know. But I think there's a good chance , in part, good news just isn't news per se.

 

[Schweddy]

Because they're listening to the NEWS, liberals don't dislike the war just for the hell of it, liberals dislike the war because up until now it's been a failure. And I listen to the news, and I hear good news and bad news about the war (and it's usually about the same amount of good news and bad news).

Well, you are an exception, I think I remember you posting about your very broad spectrum of new sources daily before. Many rarely listen to any - Independent minded folks normally utilize the full potential of the radio, net, and TV.

I on the other hand, just being honest, normally only commit to a single source or source(s).

 

[Billo_Really]

You don't hear about the hospital we bombed in Fallujah either. And by the way, they only get about 8 hours of electricity a day. But one man who was tortured by GI's that was released commented that as part of his torture they used electric shock to his buttocks. For which later he said, "American GI's were able to bring electricity to my ass, before they could get it to my block!" At least he still has a sense of humor.