• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Even More Examples of Liberal Media Bias

galenrox said:
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).
It hasn't been a failure. Our military objective was to take over the country, overthrow a despotic genocidal dictator, and establish a temporary government. Then hold democratic and free elections. Create a stable government, which would then structure a constitution. Enable Iraqi security forces to become self-sufficient, and in the process keep the country as securily stable as possible.

We have done, or are working on all of that. We have failed in nothing. We lost nothing. It's true that insurgents, terrorists and foreign fighters continue to randomly car bomb certain areas, but the country as a whole is on the right path.

It depends on what news source you listen to. The report I listed above was based on national media outlets like the whitehouse press core and nightline. There are other studies that show local news outlets like your local 6 o'clock news are much more balanced than national outlets.
 
Billo_Really said:
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.
Do you believe everything terrorists spout about people they consider their enemies without evidence?
 
Last edited:
No. And there is! One other thing. I certainly do not believe proven liars.
 
Last edited:
Billo_Really said:
No. And there is! One other thing. I certainly do not believe proven liars.

Do you trust and believe people who try to prove their point by taking things said by others, using it out of context?

Like when I said:

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.

Then you narrowed in on: media doesn't like Bush and then said I couldn't be more full of *****

I certainly don't believe or respect people who engage in that type of BS. Do you?
 
Stherngntlmn said:
http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp

mediab12.gif



:rolleyes: and you know a lot of them only said 'other' so as not to show their leftist bias
mediab21.gif



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

Are you kidding me? Your “evidence” is from The Media Research Center.

The following is a quote from “The Media Research Center’s” website:

The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance and responsibility to the news media. Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed --- Media Research Center (MRC).

How can a heavily biased organization conduct an intellectually honest study that finds bias? You are citing an organization that is ran and funded by Fundamentalists and Conservative Movement Activists. It’s the equivalent of citing a White Supremacist Organizations studies on the intelligence of minorities.

I could offer up plenty of evidence of right wing bias in the media and use http://www.mediamatters.org/ as my source. However, I don’t think it would necessarily always be intellectually honest being that it would be coming from a progressive source.

Oh, and I did find this critique of Bernard Goldberg’s book:

Here is an excerpt:

An asymmetrical world

When Goldberg points to alleged bias in media news, it's often just evidence that the world is asymmetrical. For instance, he's outraged that reporters who label Rush Limbaugh "conservative" fail to call Rosie O'Donnell "liberal." The fact that Limbaugh's show is virtually always about hard-core right-wing politics, while O'Donnell's is much more likely to be about Broadway shows or snack foods, seems to elude him. Goldberg writes that Dan Rather characterized George W. Bush's presidential agenda as "Republican-right," and wonders why he didn't "talk about President Clinton and his 'Democratic-left agenda.'" Could it have anything to do with the fact that Bush ran as a proud standard-bearer of the GOP's right wing, while Clinton boasted of moving his party from the left to the center?

Large chunks of the book deal with forms of bias that could hardly be called liberal. For example, Goldberg chides NBC anchor Tom Brokaw for failing to do a story about a defective airplane engine made by NBC parent General Electric. This kind of pro-corporate cover-up is something progressive media critics have been pointing out for years.

Later, Goldberg delivers a lengthy and stinging indictment of the networks for making profit-based decisions valuing white and middle-class demographics above all else, and skewing news and entertainment accordingly. He concludes, "Advertisers like white audiences, they have more money to spend." How this supports Goldberg's thesis that the networks "slant the news in a leftward direction" is far from clear.

Goldberg's prescriptions for improving the news aren't much better than his media analysis. He writes that broadcast reports about a controversial childcare study released last year could have been more balanced. Goldberg's remedy? Reporters should have interviewed Steve Forbes. While not an expert on child development, Goldberg writes, Forbes could have explained that working less and raising children without having to rely on daycare was exactly what was so attractive about his flat-tax plan. You finish the book wondering not whether the media have a left-wing bias--it provides no credible evidence of that--but whether Goldberg has some kind of fixation on Steve Forbes.

The rest is here: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1100

Once again, if there is all this liberal bias in the media, why is there no independent studies that show it?
 
The flaw in news outlets is that they are American based with american bias. They are not going to tell us about the torture of 10 year olds in front of their fathers by the US military at Abu Graib. But if your interested, click the link below and read in shock and awe!

http://www.sundayherald.com/43796
 
Last edited:
Pacridge, you're right. I was a little too hasty on this one. My mistake. I apologize.
 
Last edited:
The "facts" come from sources, with agendas and opinions. It is absurd to think that anyone is trully objective in journalism. You are either for democracy or against it. You are either of the people or of the elite, and the bias is always demonstrated to some extent or another. I'm sure a great deal of reporters are liberal, as most journalists tend to be very well educated, and I'm sure that their opinions sometimes come through. But that does not change the fact that all of these major news agencies are owned, regulated and run by huge multi-national corporations, and would therefore not tollerate anything especially radical. A given reporter may be a liberal, but the news agencies are inherently conservative. And the vast majority of sources used are conservative.
 
It goes back aways, to 2001, but a study by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting it still of some relevance if you ask me:
"A study of ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News in the year 2001 shows that 92 percent of all U.S. sources interviewed were white, 85 percent were male and, where party affiliation was identifiable, 75 percent were Republican."

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1865
 
"how many times must a man turn is head, pretending he just doesn't see"
"how many deaths does a nation endure, before they are allowed to be free"

Never before has Dylan's words been more relevent.

The point I'm making is that we spend so much time and effort trashing each others sources, that we never get to the real issue of dealing with the assertions that these (lack of reports in the media) could indicate a conservative bias with a conservative agenda. The point of this thread is just another form of "projection" by the right to deflect blame and distract the reader from the truth. There is no liberal media bias in any form on television today. When you seek alternative sources of information this becomes apparent. However, if you start your quest with a pre-disposition of the facts, you only see what you want to see. Why? Only you can answer that!

When the student is ready, the teacher will appear.
 
Last edited:
^I don't know who you are, but I now love you. Exactly my views minus the stats, cause I don't know about those. The editors tend to be conservative, while the reporters tend to be liberal, and it just balances.
 
The biggest arguement that the notion of a "...liberal media..." is a myth, is the recent television series "The Greatest American". When you look at who won, starting a thread with this kind of premise, in my view, is more suggestive, than subjective.
 
Last edited:
Billo_Really said:
The biggest arguement that the notion of a "...liberal media..." is a myth, is the recent television series "The Greatest American". When you look at who won, starting a thread with this kind of premise, in my view, is more suggestive, than subjective.

Reagan won that, in part, due to the efforts of neo-con groups to get fellow neo-cons to vote for him.
 
What would Thomas Paine think of neo-cons?
 
Last edited:
Pacridge said:
Reagan won that, in part, due to the efforts of neo-con groups to get fellow neo-cons to vote for him.

Reagan was not a Neo-Conservative. In fact, Reagan's view on foreign policy would be in stark contrast to Neo-Conservative views. I am no fan of Reagan, but I would bet a paycheck that if Reagan were in office right now we would not be in Iraq.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Reagan was not a Neo-Conservative. In fact, Reagan's view on foreign policy would be in stark contrast to Neo-Conservative views. I am no fan of Reagan, but I would bet a paycheck that if Reagan were in office right now we would not be in Iraq.

Did I say Reagan was a neo-con?
 
I don't think I've posted on here, but I'll throw in my two cents really quick. I'm quite sick of hearing this whining on the right that the media is 'biased'. Now, I'm willing to bet that an overwhelming majority of Americans get there news from television sources, not newspaper or radio ones. This includes myself. And guess what? When I want to see the right-wing or centrist take on things, I tune in to my television, where conservatives host almost every single primetime political show. We've got Hannity, Scarborough, O'Reilly, Carlson and centrists like Holmes and Matthews. Where is the left wing voice? If I want a leftist perspective on things (like the G8 protests, for example) I turn to the internet where left wing sources and sites actually exist. There is a right-wing bias on television, and television is the media the majority of Americans turn to for their news.
 
anomaly said:
I don't think I've posted on here, but I'll throw in my two cents really quick. I'm quite sick of hearing this whining on the right that the media is 'biased'. Now, I'm willing to bet that an overwhelming majority of Americans get there news from television sources, not newspaper or radio ones. This includes myself. And guess what? When I want to see the right-wing or centrist take on things, I tune in to my television, where conservatives host almost every single primetime political show. We've got Hannity, Scarborough, O'Reilly, Carlson and centrists like Holmes and Matthews. Where is the left wing voice? If I want a leftist perspective on things (like the G8 protests, for example) I turn to the internet where left wing sources and sites actually exist. There is a right-wing bias on television, and television is the media the majority of Americans turn to for their news.

You have got to be friggin kidding me. I'm right (mostly) and I don't whine. Holmes and Matthews moderate? Some lefties you say? Moyers. Katie Curric and Matt Lauer. I know he's gone now but Rather. Peter Jennings. Cross fire doesn't have lefties? Mcglaulglin group? That's what I thought of in about 10 seconds. Should I make a bigger list? Don't lie to further your point. It makes your points moot. Like now. We here on this site mostly are too smart for that. Or is your point prime time? Ed Bradley and plenty others on the big three news magazine shows. The big three nightly news has had a monopoly for a long time. Now lefties are worried that both sides are represented. Why are they scared of the free flow of information and ideas and opinions? And if there are prime time political shows that is because the dollar rules, not politics. If there was a giant market for prime time left political shows they would be there. Or is it more of the vast right wing conspiracy? Please.
 
Yes, actually my point is prime time. Let's look to the big, powerful news channels. We've a conservative MSNBC, a grossly hard-right Fox News, and a Centrist CNN. There are no real leftist voices. So basically we get to listen to Hannity and Scarborough every night. Now, whether there is a market out there for primetime liberal programming is highly debateable, but I would watch it. I'm sure other leftists on this board would watch it. So I'd say yes, there is a market.

Oh but I am always glad to enrage a conservative.
 
anomaly said:
Yes, actually my point is prime time. Let's look to the big, powerful news channels. We've a conservative MSNBC, a grossly hard-right Fox News, and a Centrist CNN. There are no real leftist voices. So basically we get to listen to Hannity and Scarborough every night. Now, whether there is a market out there for primetime liberal programming is highly debateable, but I would watch it. I'm sure other leftists on this board would watch it. So I'd say yes, there is a market.

Oh but I am always glad to enrage a conservative.

Thats a fairly offensive signature line, isn't it?

As a moderator I'm in no way asking you to remove it. Just thinking out loud so to speak and wondering what's the purpose of a statement like that?
 
anomaly said:
Oh but I am always glad to en.rage a conservative.

Your not as half as glad as I thinking that you think I'm enraged. Aleem and those who think my government did 9/11 are the only ones round these parts I can think of that have enraged me. It's one thing to annoy people with your wit and another to put simple opinions down on paper and think you've gotten under someones skin. Oh my your the very definition of "cleaver". Just like your sig. How many nights did you spend coming up with such piercing commentary? Truly pure genius. Oh lord here I go again. It's like those people who claim they speak in tongues. It is on me now brother. Verily do I say unto you, your sharp wit hast pierce my dull witted mind. Never before has such eloquence walked these hollowed halls. Thine verbosity makes us meek quiver as a dullard would in thine profound presence. I would shadow you from the noon desert sun to hear you speak but a simple adverb. Yea tho I walk trough the valley of crude banter, I fear no big words, for thine vernacular and loquaciousness doth protect me. Oh hell what am I saying? dude, you good talk, yes.
 
vauge said:
We rarely hear the good stuff like a new hospitol that marines helped assemble or electrity systems upgraded.

Since we're the ones who blew up the hospital and destroyed their infrastucture in the first place, it's hardly "good news" that we're now rebuilding things. When you destory someone's home and kill tens of thousands of innocent people all in the name of saving them, rebuilding their home is the least you can do, literally. You don't get brownie points for cleaning the bloody mess you made.



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

Maybe reporters would report more "good news" (aka, news favorable to the Bush administration) if they could venture out of the Green Zone without fear of getting their heads blown off. The truth is that the security situation in Iraq has gotten worse since "mission accomplished," not better. But to Republicans, the truth is just more liberal propaganda.
 
Pacridge said:
Thats a fairly offensive signature line, isn't it?

As a moderator I'm in no way asking you to remove it. Just thinking out loud so to speak and wondering what's the purpose of a statement like that?



The purpose is to show hes so far out on that left wing he has fallen off and is now in freefall all the way to nutball land..Get your tinfoil hat at the door.
 
galenrox said:
OH really? So are you going to try to maintain that JoJack Hillbilly who votes conservative because he's afraid dat dem elitest libawrals maht cum to take his gun awaay and dey hate Jeezus kawz dey luv dem homosecktuals is really quite intelligent, and we somehow missed out on his insight?

I believe that your quote is EXACTLY why Bush won the 2004 election...

Middle America(The "red" states") have been REPEATEDLY insulted by the Liberals(especially Hollywood) by being portrayed as unintelligent rednecks with pickup trucks and four teeth. This generated a backlash...

There are two ways to lose an election.

1) The other person and his/her crew beat you.
2) You and your crew beat yourself.

That's why you didn't see billboards in LA that said "Thank you for winning, George"...They said "Thank you Hollywood for making John lose".
 
Back
Top Bottom