• 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.

Liberal Media Using Labels To Bias

How do photoshopped images do anything but show immaturity and lack of creative debating skills?...:confused:

Did you learn this from your kindergarten nephew?
 
cnredd said:
How do photoshopped images do anything but show immaturity and lack of creative debating skills?...:confused:

Did you learn this from your kindergarten nephew?

Indeed, this from a man, or woman, I honestly don't know, who demands facts, you are constantly losing credibility sir, miss, whatever it is.:doh
 
mpg said:
I admit that Fox is a Republican network, but do you dispute the assertion that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NYT, USA Today, Time, Newsweek and US News are partisan in favor of the Democrats?

Absolutely I dispute it!

The media is only as liberal as the corporations who own them.

When I want to read a liberal journal, I pick up The Nation.
No one owns them but the readers.

Even NPR, which is about as fair and balanced as I can see, has some major corporate sponsors. Do you honestly think that they don't control the content of the stories?

Where we all of the corporate media in the run up to war? The only Anti Iraq voice of the cable networks, Phil Donahue, was cancelled, and he was the highest rated show on MS-NBC at the time.

These guys, for the most part, are stenographers for the white house. Ask them a tough question and you don't get called on again. Just look at Helen Thomas. Occasionally they show some balls, but for the most part, they're all hacks!

I don't have a problem with opinions and advocacy journalism. Just don't try to pass it off as something that it's not - i.e. fair and balanced.
 
Deegan said:
Indeed, this from a man, or woman, I honestly don't know, who demands facts, you are constantly losing credibility sir, miss, whatever it is.:doh

mee likey pixturz.
 
hipsterdufus said:
mee likey pixturz.

I can see that, as my avatar is team logo, one for which I am a great fan, yours, a sad , and angry depiction of a news source for which you despise, I feel for you, honestly I do, you must be so miserable.:(
 
Deegan said:
I can see that, as my avatar is team logo, one for which I am a great fan, yours, a sad , and angry depiction of a news source for which you despise, I feel for you, honestly I do, you must be so miserable.:(

Hold on now. Let's not confuse news with editorial/opinion. O'reilly would be the first to tell you that he is not a news program, but a news analysis program. That's why he wants to leave the bloviating to himself.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
Hold on now. Let's not confuse news with editorial/opinion. O'reilly would be the first to tell you that he is not a news program, but a news analysis program. That's why he wants to leave the bloviating to himself.


) Pronunciation Key (nz, nyz)
pl.n. (used with a sing. verb)

Information about recent events or happenings, especially as reported by newspapers, periodicals, radio, or television.
A presentation of such information, as in a newspaper or on a newscast.
New information of any kind: The requirement was news to him.
Newsworthy material: “a public figure on a scale unimaginable in America; whatever he did was news” (James Atlas).

How and where you get it is up to you, but it is, and will remain, a "news source" any other questions, or was this yet another stab at Fox news?:confused:
 
Deegan said:
) Pronunciation Key (nz, nyz)
pl.n. (used with a sing. verb)

Information about recent events or happenings, especially as reported by newspapers, periodicals, radio, or television.
A presentation of such information, as in a newspaper or on a newscast.
New information of any kind: The requirement was news to him.
Newsworthy material: “a public figure on a scale unimaginable in America; whatever he did was news” (James Atlas).

How and where you get it is up to you, but it is, and will remain, a "news source" any other questions, or was this yet another stab at Fox news?:confused:

It was not a stab. Don't be so defensive. The picture you used as an example was of O'reilly. I was just pointing out how he defines his show. I watch him and other programs and form my own opinion.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
It was not a stab. Don't be so defensive. The picture you used as an example was of O'reilly. I was just pointing out how he defines his show. I watch him and other programs and form my own opinion.

I am not defensive, I don't own Fox news, or even have stock, why on earth would I be "defensive"?

I am just pointing out the obvious, it is news, and it is how many get theirs. I know a lot of you can't stand the thought of that, but it is the truth. While it obviously has a slant, Bill's slant, it does still get the word out, and thus can be considered "news". You may be confusing him with a journalist, and while I laugh at that suggestion, I mean with the NY times, and the LA times, I do concede that point.:rofl
 
Deegan said:
I am not defensive, I don't own Fox news, or even have stock, why on earth would I be "defensive"?

I am just pointing out the obvious, it is news, and it is how many get theirs. I know a lot of you can't stand the thought of that, but it is the truth. While it obviously has a slant, Bill's slant, it does still get the word out, and thus can be considered "news". You may be confusing him with a journalist, and while I laugh at that suggestion, I mean with the NY times, and the LA times, I do concede that point.:rofl

Ok, The Daily Show and The Colbert Report as news as well.
 
hipsterdufus said:
Absolutely I dispute it!

The media is only as liberal as the corporations who own them.

When I want to read a liberal journal, I pick up The Nation.
No one owns them but the readers.

Even NPR, which is about as fair and balanced as I can see, has some major corporate sponsors. Do you honestly think that they don't control the content of the stories?

Where we all of the corporate media in the run up to war? The only Anti Iraq voice of the cable networks, Phil Donahue, was cancelled, and he was the highest rated show on MS-NBC at the time.

These guys, for the most part, are stenographers for the white house. Ask them a tough question and you don't get called on again. Just look at Helen Thomas. Occasionally they show some balls, but for the most part, they're all hacks!

I don't have a problem with opinions and advocacy journalism. Just don't try to pass it off as something that it's not - i.e. fair and balanced.

That must be why the Republican take over of Congress was reported as if it was a bigger disaster than Katrina. If you want other examples there are millions. They also vote Democratic and consider themselves liberals in overwhelming #s according to polls. This a settled issue that some people can't accept.
 
argexpat said:
Who is "they"? If "they" do it all the time, can you provide an actual example?

And can you explain why the corporate media would have a liberal bias? And while you're at it, please define "liberal."

FYI, you're going to need more than anecdotal evidence of the use of adjectives to prove any kind of bias.


Are you kidding me? Now there are no Liberals in Corporate America????? :lmao:


Andrew Lack, suddenly turned conservative?

Jon "TheCommie' Corzine, made his money hugging trees?


Get a grip. Corporate only means Profit Driven. And the Products of the overwhelmingly liberal University system that inhabited this country since the 1970's are the people running them now.
 
Hobbes3259 said:
Are you kidding me? Now there are no Liberals in Corporate America?????

The corporations themselves are not liberal.

Hobbes3259 said:
Corporate only means Profit Driven.

Then what does "liberal" mean? I thought all the ditto-heads had spent the last five years insisting that "liberals" are socialists.
 
mpg said:
That must be why the Republican take over of Congress was reported as if it was a bigger disaster than Katrina. If you want other examples there are millions. They also vote Democratic and consider themselves liberals in overwhelming #s according to polls. This a settled issue that some people can't accept.

Source please, or am I talking to Ann Coulter.
 
hipsterdufus said:
Source please, or am I talking to Ann Coulter.

That the media is biased?...Ok sure...

This is from Pew Research....Not some partian hack site...These guys are objective and held in the highest esteem...

When it comes to describing the press, twice as many say news organizations are “liberal” (51%) as say they are “conservative” (26%), while 14% say neither phrase applies. This was also the case in surveys conducted in the mid-to-late 1980s and, not surprisingly, there is a significant partisan cast to these perceptions. Republicans see the press as more liberal than conservative by nearly three to one (65% to 22%).
Among independents, the margin is two to one (50% to 25%). And while a third of Democrats say there is a conservative tilt to the American press, a slight plurality (41%) says the press is more liberal than anything else.

Last year’s survey of journalists seemed to confirm many of the suspicions of those who see a liberal bias in the news. Most journalists characterized themselves as moderates, but as a group they are far more liberal — and far less conservative —than the general public. Just 7% of the national journalists surveyed called themselves conservatives, compared with 33% of the public. And while 34% of national journalists characterized
themselves as liberals, just 20% of Americans describe themselves as liberals
.

Journalists generally say they take it as their professional obligation not to let
their own political and ideological leanings — liberal, moderate or conservative — shape their coverage. But the relatively small number of
conservatives in journalism raises concerns over the potential for liberal
group-think in the nation’s newsrooms.


http://pewresearch.org/trends/trends2005-media.pdf


So while some tend to believe what websites they want, I'll go with the real deal...
 
cnredd said:
That the media is biased?...Ok sure...

This is from Pew Research....Not some partian hack site...These guys are objective and held in the highest esteem...

When it comes to describing the press, twice as many say news organizations are “liberal” (51%) as say they are “conservative” (26%), while 14% say neither phrase applies. This was also the case in surveys conducted in the mid-to-late 1980s and, not surprisingly, there is a significant partisan cast to these perceptions. Republicans see the press as more liberal than conservative by nearly three to one (65% to 22%).
Among independents, the margin is two to one (50% to 25%). And while a third of Democrats say there is a conservative tilt to the American press, a slight plurality (41%) says the press is more liberal than anything else.

Last year’s survey of journalists seemed to confirm many of the suspicions of those who see a liberal bias in the news. Most journalists characterized themselves as moderates, but as a group they are far more liberal — and far less conservative —than the general public. Just 7% of the national journalists surveyed called themselves conservatives, compared with 33% of the public. And while 34% of national journalists characterized
themselves as liberals, just 20% of Americans describe themselves as liberals
.

Journalists generally say they take it as their professional obligation not to let
their own political and ideological leanings — liberal, moderate or conservative — shape their coverage. But the relatively small number of
conservatives in journalism raises concerns over the potential for liberal
group-think in the nation’s newsrooms.


http://pewresearch.org/trends/trends2005-media.pdf


So while some tend to believe what websites they want, I'll go with the real deal...

Thanks for the info. I agree with you that a lot of liberals are called to the profession of journalism. You could also add education and law to that list. I'm also sure you could also come up with professions that have a preponderance of repubs.

The problem with the data is that it doesn't deal with the corporate conglomerate ownership of the media, and the enormous power they have over their employees.
 
hipsterdufus said:
Source please, or am I talking to Ann Coulter.

Gallup polled the DC press corp in 1992. 89% voted for Clinton. When you consider the fact that some of those people were working for conservative media outlets such as the NY Post, the Washington Times, and the National Review, that means that almost 100% of the people from the major networks voted for Clinton.

They regularly give favorable coverage to Democratic politicians and negative coverage to Republican politicians. Does Dan Rather ring a bell? I can give you a million other examples.

Then there's issue coverage. They're pro gun control, pro choice on abortion, pro affirmative action, anti death penalty, and anti military. I can give you examples of this too.

It's kind of funny that you mentioned NPR. I guess you forgot about their involvement in the campaign finance scandal of 1996. Do you think that they've changed that much in 9 years?
 
Last edited:
mpg said:
Gallup polled the DC press corp in 1992. 89% voted for Clinton. When you consider the fact that some of those people were working for conservative media outlets such as the NY Post, the Washington Times, and the National Review, that means that almost 100% of the people from the major networks voted for Clinton.

They regularly give favorable coverage to Democratic politicians and negative coverage to Republican politicians. Does Dan Rather ring a bell? I can give you a million other examples.

Then there's issue coverage. They're pro gun control, pro choice on abortion, pro affirmative action, anti death penalty, and anti military. I can give you examples of this too.

It's kind of funny that you mentioned NPR. I guess you forgot about their involvement in the campaign finance scandal of 1996. Do you think that they've changed that much in 9 years?

You cite a DC press corps poll and that translates to all journalists in the "major networks". There are only three major networks. How many members of the DC press corps are there? And citing one election is hardly a scientific sample.
 
hipsterdufus said:
Thanks for the info. I agree with you that a lot of liberals are called to the profession of journalism. You could also add education and law to that list. I'm also sure you could also come up with professions that have a preponderance of repubs.

The problem with the data is that it doesn't deal with the corporate conglomerate ownership of the media, and the enormous power they have over their employees.
If you believe that this "corporate conglomerate ownership of the media" is slanted, I believe that it is YOUR TURN to provide sources for this...have fun...:2wave:
 
dragonslayer said:
Ha ha ha, I just quoted the previous right wing babble. they were the ones that said Liiberals should leave the country. I believe it is the neo conservative anti Americans that should leave america. all they want to do is tell everyone how to think, destroy the Bill of Rights, start little wars for the profit of Big business, and tell us which church is the good one. To believe a neoconservative when he is speaking spin tis to believe liars and decievers. Why do you Neo Conservatives lie so darn much? It might be a curable disease. Maybe some special hormones will turn neo conservatiives back into Americans.
You seem to throw the term "neoconservative" around quite a bit. Do you even know what neoconservatism stands for?

As for the term itself, the media too uses the term anytime they wish to show Republicans in a negative light. I'd be willing to bet that most in the media don't know either what the term signifies. They just think it sounds good in some 20 second sound bite when they are trying to dis Repubs.
 
independent_thinker2002 said:
You cite a DC press corps poll and that translates to all journalists in the "major networks". There are only three major networks. How many members of the DC press corps are there? And citing one election is hardly a scientific sample.

The DC press corp is almost every journalist who covers national politics. I agree that journalism isn't as liberal at the local level.
 
mpg said:
Gallup polled the DC press corp in 1992. 89% voted for Clinton. When you consider the fact that some of those people were working for conservative media outlets such as the NY Post, the Washington Times, and the National Review, that means that almost 100% of the people from the major networks voted for Clinton.

They regularly give favorable coverage to Democratic politicians and negative coverage to Republican politicians. Does Dan Rather ring a bell? I can give you a million other examples.

Then there's issue coverage. They're pro gun control, pro choice on abortion, pro affirmative action, anti death penalty, and anti military. I can give you examples of this too.

It's kind of funny that you mentioned NPR. I guess you forgot about their involvement in the campaign finance scandal of 1996. Do you think that they've changed that much in 9 years?


If the media is so liberal than how do you account for the preponderance of nagative press against Al Gore documented below?

How the Press Covered the Final Stages of the Presidential Campaign

Overview

In the culminating weeks of the 2000 presidential race, the press coverage was strikingly negative, and Vice President Al Gore has gotten the worst of it, according to a new study released today by the Committee of Concerned Journalists.

Gore's coverage was decidedly more negative, more focused on the internal politics of campaigning and had less to do with citizens than did his Republican rival.

In contrast, George W. Bush was twice as likely as Gore to get coverage that was positive in tone. Coverage of the governor was also more issue-oriented and more likely to be directly connected to citizens.

These are some of the key findings of a major new study of press coverage in newspapers, television and on the Internet during key weeks in September and October.

Overall, nearly a quarter of all Bush dominated stories were clearly positive in nature, while that was true of only 13% of Gore stories, according to the study. Bush was also less likely to receive negative coverage than Gore.

Tone of Coverage for Gore & Bush

Positive Gore 13% Bush 24%
Neutral Gore 31% Bush 27%
Negative Gore 56% Bush 49%
Total 100 100


One reason for the hard time for Gore may be the penchant of the press to focus coverage around strategy and tactics.

The study produced, for the Committee by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Princeton Survey Research Associates, examined 1,149 stories from 17 news publications, programs and websites.

http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/campaign2000/lastlap/default.asp
 
Last edited:
hipsterdufus said:
If the media is so liberal than how do you account for the preponderance of nagative press against Al Gore documented below?

How the Press Covered the Final Stages of the Presidential Campaign

Overview

In the culminating weeks of the 2000 presidential race, the press coverage was strikingly negative, and Vice President Al Gore has gotten the worst of it, according to a new study released today by the Committee of Concerned Journalists.

Gore's coverage was decidedly more negative, more focused on the internal politics of campaigning and had less to do with citizens than did his Republican rival.

In contrast, George W. Bush was twice as likely as Gore to get coverage that was positive in tone. Coverage of the governor was also more issue-oriented and more likely to be directly connected to citizens.

These are some of the key findings of a major new study of press coverage in newspapers, television and on the Internet during key weeks in September and October.

Overall, nearly a quarter of all Bush dominated stories were clearly positive in nature, while that was true of only 13% of Gore stories, according to the study. Bush was also less likely to receive negative coverage than Gore.

Tone of Coverage for Gore & Bush

Positive Gore 13% Bush 24%
Neutral Gore 31% Bush 27%
Negative Gore 56% Bush 49%
Total 100 100


One reason for the hard time for Gore may be the penchant of the press to focus coverage around strategy and tactics.

The study produced, for the Committee by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Princeton Survey Research Associates, examined 1,149 stories from 17 news publications, programs and websites.

http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/campaign2000/lastlap/default.asp
All I can recall from the last week of the 2000 election was the press going ga-ga over Bush's DUI...
 
hipsterdufus said:
If the media is so liberal than how do you account for the preponderance of nagative press against Al Gore documented below?

How the Press Covered the Final Stages of the Presidential Campaign

Overview

In the culminating weeks of the 2000 presidential race, the press coverage was strikingly negative, and Vice President Al Gore has gotten the worst of it, according to a new study released today by the Committee of Concerned Journalists.

Gore's coverage was decidedly more negative, more focused on the internal politics of campaigning and had less to do with citizens than did his Republican rival.

In contrast, George W. Bush was twice as likely as Gore to get coverage that was positive in tone. Coverage of the governor was also more issue-oriented and more likely to be directly connected to citizens.

These are some of the key findings of a major new study of press coverage in newspapers, television and on the Internet during key weeks in September and October.

Overall, nearly a quarter of all Bush dominated stories were clearly positive in nature, while that was true of only 13% of Gore stories, according to the study. Bush was also less likely to receive negative coverage than Gore.

Tone of Coverage for Gore & Bush

Positive Gore 13% Bush 24%
Neutral Gore 31% Bush 27%
Negative Gore 56% Bush 49%
Total 100 100


One reason for the hard time for Gore may be the penchant of the press to focus coverage around strategy and tactics.

The study produced, for the Committee by the Project for Excellence in Journalism and Princeton Survey Research Associates, examined 1,149 stories from 17 news publications, programs and websites.

http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/campaign2000/lastlap/default.asp

So let me get this straight...

First you say this...

Thanks for the info. I agree with you that a lot of liberals are called to the profession of journalism

...and then you use these same people as a source?

Five points...

1) Lord knows if they said the opposite, that would feed into the "Liberal Bias" perception which would hurt their overall cause, so saying the opposite is in their best interests.

2) Was is considered "negative"?...Saying "Al Gore is down by 2 points" is a fact that could easily be construed as negative...Maybe they were annoyed because reporters didn't start their articles with "The exhaulted Al Gore"?...:roll:

3) Maybe it actually was more negative due to the fact that, at the time, more negativity was called for due to what Al Gore did or said?...I sure many would think that, as of right now, reporting in the Libby story would be considered "strikingly negative"...Maybe it was deservingly....

4) "Gore 56% Bush 49%"...Are you going to sit there and believe that 56 against 49 is somehow overwhelming evidence?!?!?

5) Your source is ONLY for the "culminating weeks of the 2000 presidential race"...So your going to use a "blip" on the radar as evidence?...:confused:


BTW - You still haven't provided sources for this sentence...

The problem with the data is that it doesn't deal with the corporate conglomerate ownership of the media, and the enormous power they have over their employees.

You are accusing the ownership of being slanted...and then accusing them of sticking their nose into the journalist's business and "directing" them to do what is in THEIR best interests...Prove it...
 
Bush want to attack Syria now. Wow the man if losing his Marbles.

He is acting stranger and stranger each month. We loyal americans have Room in the Mentally Ill wing of the Hospital for Bush.

Bush and the neo cons believe that if they make Syria into a bad guy, then their ratings will go up and the American people will forget how corrupt they are.

It is time to start fighting Terrorist instead of creating them from thin Air.

All Bush can do now is lie and lie and lie and lie and lie. He has lied so much, I doubt he know what is actually real.

To believe Bush and Cheney is to look at a pile of dog poop, and "say what a lovely dog."
 
Back
Top Bottom