• 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.

Left Wing Lie Of The Hour (Including Ones About The Fictional Right Wing Media)

Actually you can argue that the NY times is conservative for not releasing this early, this could've affected the election, if the american people knew about this , many moderates could've possibly had a change of heart in their voting preference.
 
Jerome Corsi, co-author of Swift Boat Vets attack book, Unfit For Command also took part in the Swift Boating of McCain and Cleland.
Click to expand...

Thanks for admitting it wasn't the Swift Boat Vets.

Care to post a few quotes from Corsi attacking McCain and Cleland?? I'd like to see them.
 
hipsterdufus said:
I stand by that statement.
Click to expand...


Hence, you are contradicting yourself by admitting to trying to get the thread shut down.


HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHA :lol:

That was real sharp there sparky.
 
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2006/cyb20060116.asp#4

Here is another in a long series of Keith Olbermann's crackpot attempts to connect elevated terror alerts with Bush bad PR. :roll:

If Bush were in the middle of getting impeached, and on the very biggest day of that impeachment launched missiles into Afghanistan taking out an aspirin factory and precisely one camel, THAT might be more convincing.

But we would never hear THAT conspiracy theory from Commisar Olbermann, because that was something Bill Clinton (a liberal) did.
 
Just to give you an idea of how many holes there are in the liberal lie that the media is anything but liberal, the following is a short list of some household name-media people and which Democrats in office they worked for before being trusted to disseminate "objective" news:

NBC Tim Russert-Governor Mario Cuomo (D), Senator Pat Moynihan (D).

CNN Jeff Greenfield-Senator Bobby Kennedy (D), Mayor John Lindsay (D).

MSNBC Chris Matthews-President Jimmy Carter (D), House Speaker Tip O'Neil (D).

NBC Ken Bode-Presidential candidate Morris Udall (D).

PBS Bill Moyers-President L.B. Johnson (D).

NBC Brian Williams-President Jimmy Carter (D).

ABC Rick Underforth-President Carter (D), President Clinton (D), and a handful of Senators, all (D).

PBS Elizabeth Brackett-Mayoral candidate Bill Singer (D), Brackett was also HERSELF a candidate (D).

NBC Jane Pauley worked on the state Democratic Committee of Indiana (D).

ABC Pierre Salinger-President Kennedy (D), he also WAS a senator from California (D).

CBS Lesley Stahl-Mayor John Lindsay (D)

New Yorker Ken Auletta-Mayor John Lindsay (D)

New York Times David Shipley-President Bill Clinton (D).

New York Times Leslie Gelb-Presidents Johnson (D) and Clinton (D).

New York Times Magazine, Atlantic Monthly, New Yorker, American Prospect James Fallows-President Jimmy Carter (D).

CNN, Los Angeles Times Tom Johnson-President Johnson (D).

Washington Post, CBS, NBC, Walter Pincus-Senator J.W. Fulbright (D), Pincus’s wife was also a Clinton appointee.

New York Times Jack Rosenthal-Presidents Kennedy (D) and Johnson (D).

USA Today John Seigenthaler-President Kennedy (D).

New Yorker Sidney Blumenthal-President Clinton (D).

U.S. News and World Report Donald Baer-President Clinton (D).

Nightline, New York Times Carolyn Curiel-President Clinton (D).

NBC Thomas Ross-President Clinton (D).

Nightline Tara Sonenshine-President Clinton (D).

TIME Strobe Talbott-President Clinton (D).


And one of my personal favorites, Dee Dee Myers, worked for Bill Clinton (D) and then got hired by Roger Ailes (the evil genius credited with Fox’s “conservative bias”-what a laugh!)

THEN, there are the media figures who are sons, daughters and spouses of prominent Democrats:

ABC-Chris Cuomo

E!-Eleanor Mondale

ABC-Cokie Roberts

Newsweek-Evan Thomas, who is the grandson of one of America’s most notorious Communists. Comrade Evan has been caught manipulating the news to protect Senator Bob Kerrey (D), and President Clinton (D)-he buried the Monica Lewinsky story for weeks until Matt Drudge finally forced it into the spotlight.

All of this, and he is still the editor of Newsweek.

And Maria Shriver, of NBC, is the niece of ultra-liberal, Teddy Kennedy, but, in all fairness, THIS one is also married to a pseudo-Republican, Governor Swarzenneger.


These are just the tip of the ice burg. The conflicts of interest just abound throughout the “mainstream” media.
 
Sorry...I guess that link isn't going to work, so here it is in its entirety:


Business Week
June 14, 2004
SECTION: ECONOMIC VIEWPOINT; Number 3887; Pg. 28
HEADLINE: The Liberal Media: It's No Myth

BYLINE: By Robert J. Barro; Robert J. Barro is a professor of economics at Harvard University and a senior fellow of the Hoover Institution (rjbweek@harvard.edu)

BODY:
Many people think the mainstream media have a liberal bias. Media spokesmen, however, usually deny such claims. So who's right? Is there a left-wing bias, or has the right wing conspired not only to influence the media but also to create a false image of unfairness? Some scientific evidence is available in a continuing study, A Measure of Media Bias, by

Tim Groseclose of the University of California at Los Angeles and Jeff Milyo of the University of Chicago, presented last March at Stanford University's Workshop on the Media & Economic Performance. These researchers set up an objective measure of bias in U.S. television networks, newspapers, and magazines. The main finding is that the liberal inclination is pronounced. Although Fox News emerges as conservative, it is not nearly as far to the right as many outlets are to the left.

Groseclose and Milyo began with the well-known ratings of the voting records of U.S. senators and representatives by Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a self-described liberal lobbying group. The researchers used data for the 1990s and adjusted the ADA scores to make them comparable over time and across the two chambers. On a 0-100 scale, with 100 the most liberal, the median member of the U.S. House had an ADA score of 39. Thus, 39 is a reasonable measure of a centrist position. Among well-known senators, Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) had a highly conservative score of 4, whereas Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) had a strikingly liberal score of 80.

THE NEXT STEP MEASURED the tendency of Senate and House members in their speeches to cite 200 prominent think tanks. The citations considered were those that referred favorably to a view or fact presented by a think tank. Not counted were negative citations or those purely descriptive of a think tank's actions. As an example, the Heritage Foundation was cited by legislators whose average ADA ratings were 6 -- that is, very conservative. Also highly conservative were the Family Research Council (rating of 6) and the National Right to Life Committee (7). Left-wing think tanks included the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities (80), the Children's Defense Fund (77), and the Economic Policy Institute (72). Surprisingly, the American Civil Liberties Union was centrist (35), an outcome driven by the ACLU's opposition to campaign-finance reform.

The last step measured the tendency of various media outlets to cite the same 200 think tanks. The researchers considered only ''news stories'' -- not editorials, letters to the editor, and so on. The periods covered ranged from 1990 to 2003. Again, the citations were those that referred favorably to a view or fact provided by a think tank. The researchers used this information to calculate a right- vs. left-wing indicator for each media outlet -- effectively, an ADA rating. The assumption is that media outlets that refer favorably to conservative think tanks are reasonably characterized as conservative, whereas those that refer positively to liberal think tanks are plausibly labeled as liberal. The final product (in a preliminary table provided by the authors) was a list of computed ADA ratings for the media outlets.

On the conservative end, Fox News Special Report came out with a rating of 27; that is, 12 points more conservative than the 39 of the median member of the House. The only other right-of-center outlet was The Washington Times, at 34.

On the liberal end, Newsweek had an astonishing rating of 72 -- that's 33 points more liberal than the House median. Other highly liberal outlets included The New York Times, Time magazine, the CBS Evening News, USA Today, and NBC Nightly News. These scores ranged from 62 to 64, about 25 points above the House median. For viewers seeking truly ''fair and balanced'' reporting, the best outlets were ABC Good Morning America and NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. The ADA scores for these programs were 39 and 41, respectively. Places moderately left of center were CNN's NewsNight with Aaron Brown (49), The Washington Post (53), NPR's Morning Edition (55) and ABC WorldNews Tonight (55).

Because of problems in data collection, the list excluded The Wall Street Journal, but it will be added soon. Also excluded is talk radio, which seems to have a conservative bent. Bottom line: The Groseclose-Milyo study shows the media are skewed substantially to the left of the typical member of Congress. Thus, if the opinions of viewers and readers are similar to those of their representatives, the media slant is far to the left of that of most of their customers.
URL: http://www.businessweek.com/index.html

LOAD-DATE: June 10, 2004
 
So because they cite left wing thing tanks they have a left bias? Meh. Count me as unimpressed.
 
aquapub said:
Sorry...I guess that link isn't going to work, so here it is in its entirety:


Business Week
June 14, 2004
SECTION: ECONOMIC VIEWPOINT; Number 3887; Pg. 28
HEADLINE: The Liberal Media: It's No Myth
Click to expand...
Although I may agree with you on your position, you STILL have neglected to show what you've claimed in previous threads and posts...

You've stated that you've done an "award winning" report, which you have not yet shown to the forum members...

As much as I'd like to believe you, you still haven't shown that report nor its relevancy...
 
aquapub said:
Sorry...I guess that link isn't going to work, so here it is in its entirety:

Because of problems in data collection, the list excluded The Wall Street Journal, but it will be added soon. Also excluded is talk radio, which seems to have a conservative bent. Bottom line: The Groseclose-Milyo study shows the media are skewed substantially to the left of the typical member of Congress. Thus, if the opinions of viewers and readers are similar to those of their representatives, the media slant is far to the left of that of most of their customers.
URL: http://www.businessweek.com/index.html
Click to expand...

This study has been debunked several times. I list four sources here.

The methodology wouldn't hold up in a High School History Class. I would be interested in what the comments from your professor at the University of Cincinnati. If you have an e-mail address for your professor, I would gladly follow up.

UCLA political scientist Tim Groseclose and Missouri economist Jeff Milyo have published a study (PDF) alleging liberal media bias that is receiving a lot of attention, including a link on Drudge. But you should be wary of trusting its conclusions for reasons that I tried to explain to Groseclose after he presented the paper at Duke in fall 2003.

In short, the underlying assumption is that, if the press is unbiased, then media outlets will cite think tanks in news reporting in a fashion that is "balanced" with respect to the scores assigned to the groups based on Congressional citations. Any deviation from the mean ADA score of Congress is defined as "bias." But is that a fair assumption?
Click to expand...

/snip

Quoting Dow Jones from the same web page:

Dow Jones & Co. in a letter to Romenesko responding to the study's classification of the Wall Street Journal news pages as liberal:

"[T]he reader of this report has to travel all the way Table III on page 57 to discover that the researchers' "study" of the content of The Wall Street Journal covers exactly FOUR MONTHS in 2002, while the period examined for CBS News covers more than 12 years, and National Public Radio’s content is examined for more than 11 years. This huge analytical flaw results in an assessment based on comparative citings during vastly differing time periods, when the relative newsworthiness of various institutions could vary widely. Thus, Time magazine is “studied” for about two years, while U.S. News and World Report is examined for eight years. Indeed, the periods of time covered for the Journal, the Washington Post and the Washington Times are so brief that as to suggest that they were simply thrown into the mix as an afterthought. Yet the researchers provide those findings the same weight as all the others, without bothering to explain that in any meaningful way to the study’s readers."
Click to expand...

/snip

Quoting Media Matters from the same web page:

We leave to the reader the judgment on whether anyone could take seriously a coding scheme in which RAND is considered substantially more "liberal" than the ACLU. But this is not the only problem with Groseclose and Milyo's study; they lump together advocacy groups and think tanks that perform dramatically different functions. For instance, according to their data, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) is the third most-quoted group on the list. But stories about race relations that include a quote from an NAACP representative are unlikely to be "balanced" with quotes from another group on their list. Their quotes will often be balanced by quotes from an individual, depending on the nature of the story; however, because there are no pro-racism groups of any legitimacy (or on Groseclose and Milyo's list), such stories will be coded as having a "liberal bias." On the other hand, a quote from an NRA spokesperson can and often will be balanced with one from another organization on Groseclose and Milyo's list, Handgun Control, Inc...
Click to expand...
http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/the_problems_wi.html

From FAIR - Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

The report used a peculiar Rube Goldberg (see footnote) –like method to calculate media bias from think tank citations: Taking the Americans for Democratic Action ratings of congressional voting records as its yardstick, it assumed that media outlets have ideologies similar to those of members of Congress who cited the same think tanks that the media outlets did.

This approach is based on the problematic notion that politicians cite the think tanks that they most agree with rather than the ones whose citation will be the most politically effective—a problem the researchers acknowledge when they attempt to explain away some curious anomalies that their method produces. (The National Rifle Association comes out as a centrist group; the Rand Corporation turns out to be left-leaning.)

If the authors truly wanted to rank media outlets on the ADA scale, the simpler method would be to look at the ADA ratings of congressmembers quoted by those news outlets. One suspects that the authors avoided this obvious approach because the results would have been less to their liking: Studies in Extra! have repeatedly found various media outlets quote Republicans more often than Democrats, by ratios ranging from 3 to 2 on NPR (5–6/04) to 3 to 1 on nightly network news (5–6/02) to a startling 5 to 1 on Fox News’ Special Report (7–8/04). Fox News, according to Groseclose and Milyo’s method, is a “centrist” news outlet.
Click to expand...

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2534

footnote

"Rube Goldberg machines"—devices that are exceedingly complex and perform very simple tasks in a very indirect and convoluted way. He was posthumously awarded the National Cartoonist Society Gold Key Award in 1980.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Goldberg

Rube Goldberg
0102history-rg.png
 
aquapub said:
Sorry...I guess that link isn't going to work, so here it is in its entirety:



Groseclose and Milyo began with the well-known ratings of the voting records of U.S. senators and representatives by Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), a self-described liberal lobbying group. The researchers used data for the 1990s and adjusted the ADA scores to make them comparable over time and across the two chambers. On a 0-100 scale, with 100 the most liberal, the median member of the U.S. House had an ADA score of 39. Thus, 39 is a reasonable measure of a centrist position. Among well-known senators, Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) had a highly conservative score of 4, whereas Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) had a strikingly liberal score of 80.
Click to expand...

There in lies the whole problem actually. It's center's the "moderate" at 39. there is an obviously logical flaw in that methodology. Should the Congress have been rated, on the whole, a "3" of 100, it would hardly be accurate to say that "3" is moderate. or that 12 is "left wing."

Shifting the center to show that there are fewer outlets or those outlets are "less extreme" is useless in a rational discussion.

I tend to believe myself, that the media is faily moderate, but significantly more "liberal" on the whole. However, first and foremost, especially about television and radio media, is that, regardless of their "political bias" they are ENTERTAINMENT.

There are more flashing lights, cool sound effets, strange characters and fancy props (not to mention beautiful people) in a couple hours of Cable News, that the full extended version DVD of all three in the Lord of the Rings Triology.

Try this for a while, actually PAY ATTENTION to all that is NOT NEWS on TV "News." the computer generated effects, camera cuts, split screens, technology exhibits, props and such. I mean don't even listen to what the people are saying, and tell me, that's news? Mute the TV.

Then Turn on the Sound, and examine the WORDS and SOUNDS. and not what is said but HOW something is said. What connotations, what implications, what tones of approval or disapproval do you hear?

THEN, listen to what is said, listen for buzz words, emotional words. Listen for "yes" and "no," listen to all the information these people say, that is actually NOT the news.

There is so little actual NEWS on 24 hour news channels, as it is (since a huge amount of time is editorials, but I am not even talking about those), and much of that time is taken up with the glitz and glam of madison avenue.

Oh yeah, watch HOW they dress too. Colors invoke moods. Grey invokes "likeableness" Black invokes "command, or respect." This is TV people, a multi-billion dollar industry. You can damn well be sure that people put on thier clothes on purpose, thier ties, shoes, suits, blouses, earrings, glasses, etc. Ever pay attention to the credits? "Wardrobe provided by So and So" Bill O'Rielly does not where his own clothes on Set, Niether does Vanna White or Barney the Dinosaur. Oh, and of course, set arrangement is important too. What's behind them, to the side, etc. All planned.
 
Last edited:
As a regular international traveller from my homeland of the UK, I am always astounded when there are claims of the US media having a 'liberal bias'. In my home country, the majority of the media is owned by huge corporations, and they naturally spin news to benefit the interests of the rich and powerful - the exception being commercial TV, which is bound by law to cover both sides and therefore end up covering neither. The only news outlets to try and represent the full range of news stories, including those which may be damaging to interests of the elite business community, are the non-profit independents - The BBC's TV and Radio channels, and the Independent and Guardian newspapers, which are run by non-profit cooperative boards. While the spread of media (in the newspaper market maybe 80% pro-business interests against 20% independent) in this country is far from fair and balanced, it is still superior to the US - even the supposedly 'liberal' papers in the US such as the NY Times and Washington Post would be considered centre-right media in this country, being as they invariably kowtow to the big business spin on issues (unsurprisingly as they are the mouthpieces of huge media corporations)... there are no newspapers that dont at the end of the day tow the elite's line, and the same is true of the big TV companies, although few are as outspokenly big business propaganda-laden as Murdoch's mouthpieces (The Sun newspaper in the UK and Fox in the US). The fact is, where there are no limit to corporation media ownership, as is close to being the case in the US, and is thankfully a bit further off in the UK until Murdoch gets his way, then you will end up with the situation where the media speaks with one spin on the news - that which serves the interest of the rich and powerful. It is not a matter of 'liberal' or 'conservative'.
 
Touchmaster said:
As a regular international traveller from my homeland of the UK, I am always astounded when there are claims of the US media having a 'liberal bias'. In my home country, the majority of the media is owned by huge corporations, and they naturally spin news to benefit the interests of the rich and powerful - the exception being commercial TV, which is bound by law to cover both sides and therefore end up covering neither. The only news outlets to try and represent the full range of news stories, including those which may be damaging to interests of the elite business community, are the non-profit independents - The BBC's TV and Radio channels, and the Independent and Guardian newspapers, which are run by non-profit cooperative boards. While the spread of media (in the newspaper market maybe 80% pro-business interests against 20% independent) in this country is far from fair and balanced, it is still superior to the US - even the supposedly 'liberal' papers in the US such as the NY Times and Washington Post would be considered centre-right media in this country, being as they invariably kowtow to the big business spin on issues (unsurprisingly as they are the mouthpieces of huge media corporations)... there are no newspapers that dont at the end of the day tow the elite's line, and the same is true of the big TV companies, although few are as outspokenly big business propaganda-laden as Murdoch's mouthpieces (The Sun newspaper in the UK and Fox in the US). The fact is, where there are no limit to corporation media ownership, as is close to being the case in the US, and is thankfully a bit further off in the UK until Murdoch gets his way, then you will end up with the situation where the media speaks with one spin on the news - that which serves the interest of the rich and powerful. It is not a matter of 'liberal' or 'conservative'.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The real bias in American media is not liberal, it is sensationalist and pro-business. If a story gets more ratings, it will be run - bottom line.

To your other point, though: It is true that people do not realize how conservative the United States' media and government is by comparison to other countries (especially in Europe).
 
Engimo said:
Indeed. The real bias in American media is not liberal, it is sensationalist and pro-business. If a story gets more ratings, it will be run - bottom line.

To your other point, though: It is true that people do not realize how conservative the United States' media and government is by comparison to other countries (especially in Europe).
Click to expand...

The BBC,Guardian,New York Times and Washington Post are considered moonbat left by the conservatives in America, that's what makes the argument so humorous...but dangerous.

I read several liberal magazines - The Nation, The Progressive and Mother Jones. They look nothing like the aforementioned U.S. papers.
 
I think we need to get beyond the left and right thing here and onto the divide between media that is a mouthpiece of elite interests and media that attempts to cover stories that arent in the interets of the powerful. The Guardian and the BBC are considered mainstream in the UK (in fact the BBC is one of the UK's best-loved institutions, despite Murdoch's smear attempts on a day-to-day basis in the Sun newspaper and on Fox News), but being independent of rich shareholders, they have the ability to cover stories that business propaganda outlets would not be able to, regardless of the integrity of individual journalists. The NYTimes and Washington Post would be regarded as business-orientated media in the UK.
 
Touchmaster said:
I think we need to get beyond the left and right thing here and onto the divide between media that is a mouthpiece of elite interests and media that attempts to cover stories that arent in the interets of the powerful. The Guardian and the BBC are considered mainstream in the UK (in fact the BBC is one of the UK's best-loved institutions, despite Murdoch's smear attempts on a day-to-day basis in the Sun newspaper and on Fox News), but being independent of rich shareholders, they have the ability to cover stories that business propaganda outlets would not be able to, regardless of the integrity of individual journalists. The NYTimes and Washington Post would be regarded as business-orientated media in the UK.
Click to expand...

In an ideal world - you're dead right. But look around. We have people here trying to say that Drudge leans left and Fox is a centrist organization amongst other absurdities. Not only are they saying it, they believe it. I would love to see a study on brainwashing through constant consumption of right-wing media. Seriously.
 
cnredd said:
Although I may agree with you on your position, you STILL have neglected to show what you've claimed in previous threads and posts...

You've stated that you've done an "award winning" report, which you have not yet shown to the forum members...

As much as I'd like to believe you, you still haven't shown that report nor its relevancy...
Click to expand...


I wasn't aware that anyone was still asking me to somehow put my actual portfolio on the thread. I already explained that a really long time ago. If you can tell me how to do that I will try.
 
hipsterdufus said:
In an ideal world - you're dead right. But look around. We have people here trying to say that Drudge leans left and Fox is a centrist organization amongst other absurdities. Not only are they saying it, they believe it. I would love to see a study on brainwashing through constant consumption of right-wing media. Seriously.
Click to expand...


:lol:

Coming from a guy who uses conspiracy theory tabloid sites as "proof" and regurgitates false, hysterical Move On smears instead of forming original arguments.

Spare me.
 
Kelzie said:
So because they cite left wing thing tanks they have a left bias? Meh. Count me as unimpressed.
Click to expand...


Yes. If I constantly cited right wing think tanks to explain/justify my thinking, I would expect to be considered right wing. This is not a controversial notion.
 
aquapub said:
:lol:

Coming from a guy who uses conspiracy theory tabloid sites as "proof" and regurgitates false, hysterical Move On smears instead of forming original arguments.

Spare me.
Click to expand...

Well, I mean. It's true. Even if you are a conservative, you've got to admit that FOX (as a whole) is not centrist.
 
Engimo said:
Indeed. The real bias in American media is not liberal, it is sensationalist and pro-business. If a story gets more ratings, it will be run - bottom line.

To your other point, though: It is true that people do not realize how conservative the United States' media and government is by comparison to other countries (especially in Europe).
Click to expand...


You know what, you're right. The "real" bias doesn't come from all these Democrats who control everything we see. Even though we won't trust any other conflict of interest of this magnitude in any other area of life, the fact that one side of the aisle controls the dissemination of "legitimate" news has no bearing on the accuracy of reporting. They are all objective (despite the ocean of examples to the contrary).

Give me a break!

Did you not see this in the earlier post?....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
NBC Tim Russert-Governor Mario Cuomo (D), Senator Pat Moynihan (D).

CNN Jeff Greenfield-Senator Bobby Kennedy (D), Mayor John Lindsay (D).

MSNBC Chris Matthews-President Jimmy Carter (D), House Speaker Tip O'Neil (D).

NBC Ken Bode-Presidential candidate Morris Udall (D).

PBS Bill Moyers-President L.B. Johnson (D).

NBC Brian Williams-President Jimmy Carter (D).

ABC Rick Underforth-President Carter (D), President Clinton (D), and a handful of Senators, all (D).

PBS Elizabeth Brackett-Mayoral candidate Bill Singer (D), Brackett was also HERSELF a candidate (D).

NBC Jane Pauley worked on the state Democratic Committee of Indiana (D).

ABC Pierre Salinger-President Kennedy (D), he also WAS a senator from California (D).

CBS Lesley Stahl-Mayor John Lindsay (D)

New Yorker Ken Auletta-Mayor John Lindsay (D)

New York Times David Shipley-President Bill Clinton (D).

New York Times Leslie Gelb-Presidents Johnson (D) and Clinton (D).

New York Times Magazine, Atlantic Monthly, New Yorker, American Prospect James Fallows-President Jimmy Carter (D).

CNN, Los Angeles Times Tom Johnson-President Johnson (D).

Washington Post, CBS, NBC, Walter Pincus-Senator J.W. Fulbright (D), Pincus’s wife was also a Clinton appointee.

New York Times Jack Rosenthal-Presidents Kennedy (D) and Johnson (D).

USA Today John Seigenthaler-President Kennedy (D).

New Yorker Sidney Blumenthal-President Clinton (D).

U.S. News and World Report Donald Baer-President Clinton (D).

Nightline, New York Times Carolyn Curiel-President Clinton (D).

NBC Thomas Ross-President Clinton (D).

Nightline Tara Sonenshine-President Clinton (D).

TIME Strobe Talbott-President Clinton (D).


And one of my personal favorites, Dee Dee Myers, worked for Bill Clinton (D) and then got hired by Roger Ailes (the evil genius credited with Fox’s “conservative bias”-what a laugh!)

THEN, there are the media figures who are sons, daughters and spouses of prominent Democrats:

ABC-Chris Cuomo

E!-Eleanor Mondale

ABC-Cokie Roberts

Newsweek-Evan Thomas, who is the grandson of one of America’s most notorious Communists. Comrade Evan has been caught manipulating the news to protect Senator Bob Kerrey (D), and President Clinton (D)-he buried the Monica Lewinsky story for weeks until Matt Drudge finally forced it into the spotlight.

All of this, and he is still the editor of Newsweek.

And Maria Shriver, of NBC, is the niece of ultra-liberal, Teddy Kennedy, but, in all fairness, THIS one is also married to a pseudo-Republican, Governor Swarzenneger.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
aquapub said:
You know what, you're right. The "real" bias doesn't come from all these Democrats who control everything we see. Even though we won't trust any other conflict of interest of this magnitude in any other area of life, the fact that one side of the aisle controls the dissemination of "legitimate" news has no bearing on the accuracy of reporting. They are all objective (despite the ocean of examples to the contrary).
Click to expand...

This is really irrelevant to what I was saying. So, a bunch of news anchors worked for or with Democrats, what is your point? If you want to show bias, show how that affiliation causes bias, not just the affiliation.
 
aquapub said:
:lol:

Coming from a guy who uses conspiracy theory tabloid sites as "proof" and regurgitates false, hysterical Move On smears instead of forming original arguments.

Spare me.
Click to expand...

If you ever want to move away from ad hominem attacks and refute the evidence I posted on your flawed UCLA media study (or any other specific issue) let me know. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom