Even More Examples of Liberal Media Bias

[argexpat]

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

Did Goldberg difine exactly what he means by "liberal," "media" and "bias"? Did he resort to anecdotal evidence, or was he able to prove systemic, industry-wide liberal bias? Did he explain why the corporate plutocrats who own the corporate media would want to promote a liberal agenda?

I'm going to keep asking these questions until one of you liberal-media conspiracy theorists answers them.

 

[argexpat]

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

Please define liberal. And please explain why the corporate media would want to put a "liberal slant" on the news.

 

[argexpat]

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...

So the red states (aka the ex-Slave States) voted Republican because they felt insulted by liberals. And what did they get from the Republican party? Tax cuts for the rich and the shifting of the tax burden on to the middle class and poor, stricter pro-corporate personal bankruptcy regulation (funny Bush didn't mention this part of his agenda during the campaign), the dismantling of Social Security under the guise of "reform," wars fought by the children of the poor, crony capitalism, a U.S. Congress for sale to the highest bidder, etc, etc.

Working-class Republicans vote God Gays and Guns, but they get the shaft instead (and the GOP walks away with the gold mine). But it's the "Hollywood liberals" who make fun of them in their movies and TV shows that are the enemy, not the elite, plutocratic Republican lawmakers beholden to corporate special interests who daily pass legislation that hurts them economically. No matter how you slice it, that's pretty stupid. If the dunce cap fits...

P.S. Apparently even rednecks like to make fun of rednecks.

 

[akyron]

Please define liberal. And please explain why the corporate media would want to put a "liberal slant" on the news.

liberal means soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense. And we're going to tax you back to the stone age because people shouldn't have to work if they don't want to. ---Bruno

Mainly because its so annoying it completely drove the American people over to the Republican party for over a decade so far.

 

[argexpat]

liberal means soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense. And we're going to tax you back to the stone age because people shouldn't have to work if they don't want to.

OK, so this is your arbitrary definition of liberal. It's not mine. And it's not the dictionary's. But to you, "liberal" is a synonym for "weak." Fine. So why would corporations want to promote weakness on crime, drugs, Communism (which is violently anti-corporate), defense (which is a boon to corporate defense contractors) and taxes (which corporations hate to pay). Does this make any sense to you? If so, please explain.

Mainly because its so annoying it completely drove the American people over to the Republican party for over a decade so far.

The fact is, the red states, which used to vote Democrat and now vote Republican, were, and are, the biggest beneficiaries of liberal economic policies, and still receive more in goverment subsidies than they pay in taxes (unlike the blue states, which pay more in taxes than they get back in government services). So the red states who vote for the party of individual responsibility and less government, are essentially a bunch of welfare queens, and it's the liberals who foot the bill. How's that for irony.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by galenrox:
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?

That's pretty good. You rock dude!

 

[freethought6t9]

Here's an excellent example of liberal bias in the (oh my God) teh New York Times. But first a clarification. Liberals are anti-business and pro-labour (simplified but true). So in order to demonstrate the liberal bias all you have to do is compare the business section of the Times to the labour section...

Oh, there isn't a labour section is there, damn! I thought I was about to prove once and for all the liberal bias of the New York Times but I think I've proven the opposite.

And if the media is liberal then how come Bush got elected? He's a recovering alcoholic with a DUI under his belt, there are possible drug abuses in his background, he used his daddies political clout to avoid serving in vietnam and avoiding a court martial for deserting, he has been involved in insider trading but the SEC dropped the investigation for reasons unknown (his daddy was V.P. at the time) and his record as Governor of Texas was appalling, yet all he got was a few cheap shots about mis-speaking.

Gore on the other hand was portrrayed as a habitual liar for claiming to invent the internet, he did not claim to invent it but (correctly) claimed to be on the senate sub-committee which appropriated the cash to fund the civilian application of the arpa-net.

As for the political leanings of journalists, well, maybe I'm just stupid but I never thought that jounos had any EDITORIAL control of the newspapers or TV stations they work for.

 

[AliG]

'IF THE LIBERALS CONTROLLED THE MEDIA BUSH WOULD NOT BE IN POWER!

And i don't see any proper liberal or left force in the US anyway, saying that Cnn is liberal is laughable! It does the same stuff that Fox does, it reports the immigrant fear, lots of terrorism, and lots of small soundbites...
By no means is there a 'liberal' (if we mean the correct definition) force in the US media?'

The New York Times is definitely not liberal, it supports big business, supports the right wing parties and generally supports the 'Washington Consensus'

And by critizing Bush, that does not entitle the label 'liberal'

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

"Liberal Media Bias" is a myth.

If you don't think so, see industry professionals discuss the true nature of the media as understood by journalists. See These Documentary's:

1) Orwell Rolls In His Grave 2) Manufacturing Consent (required viewing for UMD, Phillip Merryl School Of Journalism) 3) The Corporation (widely acclaimed among both the business and academic community, and winner of multiple awards all over the world including the Sundance Film Festival)

 

[freethought6t9]

When I watched Manufacturing Consent I almost laughed out loud, the list of corporate owners of media was so long! and it was only about 10 years old. There were 23 on the list then, you can boil it down to about 6 now, the funniest were Capital Cities, Disney and CBS, now all part of the Disney Capital Cities corporation, owners of CBS.

But the end of "Orwell..." gave me hope, Trent Lott and the NRA on our side? And Sen. Byron Dorgan dressing down Micheal Powell in the Senate hearings on the matter, I almost cried. But then you watched the Corporation and you have to just sink into an interminable depression, that guy from the Fraser Institute comparing third world sweat shops to charitable institutions, and the juxtaposition of the offices of the Fraser Institute to that international labour watchdog (I can't remember the name or whether it was a federal agency) was pure genius, but as usual, appalling.

What saddened me most about this is on a british forum I chat on, there is a very intelligent conservative, who is nevertheless, anti-Bush and quite libertarian arguing the same point about sweatshops, citing statistics from Indonesian sweatshops as an example of improved worker rights. Indonesia is of course a totalitarian dictatorship, involved in the occupation and genocide of the Timoorese with American support, when I questioned him on the source of these statistics and whether it was from official Indonesian sources he did not reply.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

When I watched Manufacturing Consent I almost laughed out loud, the list of corporate owners of media was so long! and it was only about 10 years old. There were 23 on the list then, you can boil it down to about 6 now... .... Indonesia is of course a totalitarian dictatorship, involved in the occupation and genocide of the Timoorese with American support, when I questioned him on the source of these statistics and whether it was from official Indonesian sources he did not reply.

I know... We need to send Rupert back to Aussie land where he came from. Or maybe he should just move to China, since he's in love with them. He can take Gate's and GWB with him, for all I care. In fact, I hope to see GWB put on trial for being the inconsiderate elitist puppet and moronic ass that he is. I think there is hope. But people like you and I are going to have to get the word out there. Because, we sure can't rely on 6 or 7 corporate media conglomerates to do the job for us. Please vote in the polls I have created, if you have not already. I'm trying to stir up as much awareness as possible. And thank you for conscientious words.

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

"I have been in local TV newsrooms in Phoenix, Seattle and Pittsburgh, and I don't think there is bias, either liberal or conservative," said the alumna, Tallee Whitehorn, 27, an assistant news director at WTAE- TV, an ABC affiliate in Pittsburgh. "This is not really a place for it, unless I wanted to get a lot of hate mail, which I don't."

http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/myths.html

 

[FinnMacCool]

Forgive me if someone said this already but I believe you guys are both wrong. The media is not biased because it exists to make money. The conservative attitude of Fox news etc. reflects the countrys conservative mood which is now. People don't want to hear the "real news". But then the same thing could be said about CNN, I suppose. Anderson Cooper ran this really, really dumb thing about security in subways not being good enough (they left a backpack there to see how long it would take for people to check it). If your smart, you would get news from a source other then televison news.

BBC is the only news program I actually would trust, because it comes from a source outside the United States. I do watch regular news but I don't dare to trust any of it and I'm constantly finding myself laughing at some of the rediculous "news" stories they run.

 

[akyron]

So why would corporations want to promote weakness on crime, drugs, Communism (which is violently anti-corporate), defense (which is a boon to corporate defense contractors) and taxes (which corporations hate to pay). Does this make any sense to you? If so, please explain.

Just because something is promoted or even talked about does not mean you get it.
Just look at John Kerry.

Liberals and Terrorist supporting arabs wanted him so bad they could taste it.
Denied



Mohammad Amin Bashar of the Muslim Scholars Association, a pro-insurgency group, has said "If the U.S. Army suffered numerous humiliating losses, Kerry would emerge as the superman of the American people." Another John Kerry supporter in the Iraqi resistance is Abu Jalal, who said this: "American elections and Iraq are linked tightly together. We've got to work to change the election, and we've done so. With our strikes, we've dragged Bush into the mud."

 

[ban.the.electoral.college]

Forgive me if someone said this already but I believe you guys are both wrong. The media is not biased because it exists to make money. The conservative attitude of Fox news etc. reflects the countrys conservative mood which is now. People don't want to hear the "real news". But then the same thing could be said about CNN, I suppose. Anderson Cooper ran this really, really dumb thing about security in subways not being good enough (they left a backpack there to see how long it would take for people to check it). If your smart, you would get news from a source other then televison news.

BBC is the only news program I actually would trust, because it comes from a source outside the United States. I do watch regular news but I don't dare to trust any of it and I'm constantly finding myself laughing at some of the rediculous "news" stories they run.

Yes, BBC is a publicly funded news source, so you don't get the corporate "manufacturing of consent" as you would through U.S. mainstream media (as Naom Chomsky would say). And you're absoluteley right to say our media is laughable at best. The other day, I was eating lunch in a cafe and the TV was on. I heard for what must have been 10-15 minutes about a girl that was eaten by her siberian tiger pet. I couldn't believe they were spending so much time on this stupid story. What happend was her family thought It would be cool to by a SIBERIAN TIGER to have as an exotic pet (purchased throughof EBAY of course). So one day, the daughter, she decides to get on the tigers back. Tiger get's annoyed and swats her. Rightly so. Of course she's maimed and dead. Duh. I digress.

Since ex-FCC chairman Michael Powell (colins son) allowed the Telecom Act of 1996 to go into effect we've seen 50 MNC news conglomerates dwindell down to less than 10. As a result many reporters have been canned and replaced by specialized well educated pundits. This is how Rupert Murdoch was able to gain a competitive advantage in the news market. Yes it's not longer about investigative journalism. The name of the game is numbers, ratings, and gaining corporate sponsorship by promoting the corporate agenda while increasingly depoliticizing or "dumbing down" the american populace.

 

[dragonslayer]

liberal means soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense. And we're going to tax you back to the stone age because people shouldn't have to work if they don't want to. ---Bruno

Mainly because its so annoying it completely drove the American people over to the Republican party for over a decade so far.

hee haw---What a bunch of Bushshit

 

[SHodges]

If Liberals control the media, so to they control the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of our government, being able to sway the opinions of the masses so. No? Well then, something is ary here...