Liberal Media Using Labels To Bias

[Red State Sage]

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."

So, are you making the case that Syria is a peace loving nation that in no way, shape, or form is funding, assisting, harboring, or engaging in terrorist activity? Yeah, you go head and make that case for us...:cuckoo:

 

[hipsterdufus]

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."

Sounds like another episode of "Wag The Dog"

 

[hipsterdufus]

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:

That's easy:

In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth

http://www.corporations.org/media/

Here is a breakdown of their political contributions and/or partisanship
Clear Channel: 69% Republican

Time Warner (Owns CNN, AOL) Richard Parsons, CEO of Time Warner was cochair of Bush's comission to strengthen social security. He also Contributed to Bush Cheney 04 and gave over $30,000 in contributions to Republicans.
http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/Richard_Parsons.php

Time Warner also contributed to Grover Norquist's Group American's For Tax Reform. Aol's founder Jim Kinsey is a major Repub fundraiser. Steve Case has given millions to a Florida Anti-Gay ministry. From Republican Noise Machine pp 218 219

Ruport Murdoch: He owns 175 newspapers, including the New York Post and the British daily The Times. In the United States, he owns Twentieth Century Fox Studios, Fox Network, and 35 TV stations that reach more than 40 percent-or roughly 118 million-of the country's 300 million inhabitants. His cable channels include the fast-growing 24-hour news channel Fox News and at least 19 regional sports channels. Murdoch even controls satellite dishes worldwide through his ownership of DirecTV.

Public records indicate that over the years Murdoch has given $130,600 to the Republican Party, $35,500 to the Democratic Party, $55,044 in soft money contributions, and $44,394 to special interest groups.
http://www.hpronline.org/media/paper450/news/2005/04/28/Cover/Lord-Of.The.Fourth.Estate-947501.shtml

News Corp (Fox et al)
$77,875
8% Dem
92% Rep
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=B02&cycle=2006

Viacom (CBS) Viacom Inc
$189,137
45% Dem
55% Rep
ibid

Disney (ABC ESPN)
Walt Disney Co
$165,534
37% Dem
63% Rep
ibid


Westwood One
$50,000
0% Dem
100% Rep

ibid

Comcast Corp
$389,350
46% Dem
54% Rep
ibid


General Electric
$17,775
38% Dem
62% Rep

ibid

GE (NBC) gave over 63% to Republican candidates - $898,606.00 in 2000

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...al+Electric+pac+contribution&hl=en&lr=lang_en

 

[mpg]

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

Is that what passes for documentation these days? All you did was find someone who agrees with you.

 

[cnredd]

hipsterdufus,

You're information about is excellent, and it DOES point out that the upper eschelon of these media organizations are more Republican affiliated than Democrat affiliated...

What it does NOT do is prove that they exert their power down upon their news organizations...

You are making an ASSUMPTION that because the big dogs are Republican, they CANNOT be objective and force their reporters and journalists to adhere to their line of thinking...That is the dispute...read what you responded to again...

Originally Posted by cnredd
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

You are implying that because they are Republican controlled, they are Republican "slanted"...You have not shown proof of this...

Keep in mind...None of the organizations that you've mentioned are EXCLUSIVELY a news outlet...that is just PART of their conglomeration...

An example...Viacom...They own CBS & MTV...I think most would agree that they are more Liberal than average...If what you assume would be true, the Viacom management would have never allowed Dan Rather to report on forged documents implicating GWB nor would they have allowed MTV to show 90% of what they show on the air...

Look at all of the accusations of how TV today has corrupted the masses...Most of those accusations come from the Conservative side of the aisle...

Then why on earth would a Conservative controlled ownership allow this?...According to you, one would think they would immediately curb this and shut down their own programming for the sake of their own philosophy...I don't think that will be happening anytime soon...

 

[hipsterdufus]

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?...


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...

This is the source:
http://www.journalism.org/resources/...ap/default.asp

What I'm trying to say here is that if the media is so liberal, then we should see overwhelming support for Gore, rather than the other way around in overall media coverage. I do think a good journalist can and should put aside his/her political leanings to tell a straight story.

The media painted Gore as a pathological liar who "invented the internet" and other crazy ****. The NY Times, the Boston Globe, the Washington Post and many other so called "liberal" papers slatherered affection on AWOL Bush, and abused Al Gore. TV was worse than print, if anything. Check the archives at www.DailyHowler.com to see the pundits, writers, and columnists calling Gore a pathological liar, selfish, ruthless, and worse.

Too many Americans assume the media is fair, if not biased in favor of the Democrats and liberals. This is taken for granted, and allows right wing politicians to hypocritically cite the same sources that they slam when it fits their agenda.

Most Americans have no idea how connected the corporate media is to the right wing, and how dirty the media business really is. I see the regular media assault on Democrats and their hypocritical protection of Republicans. A vicious cycle starts with RNC attack faxes filled with lies. These picked up and amplified on right wing radio in print tirades that turn vicious character assassination into "the conventional wisdom."

Gore is nuts / Dean is nuts / McCain is nuts / Liberals are nuts etc. etc.

 

[mpg]

That's easy:

http://www.corporations.org/media/

Here is a breakdown of their political contributions and/or partisanship
Clear Channel: 69% Republican

Time Warner (Owns CNN, AOL) Richard Parsons, CEO of Time Warner was cochair of Bush's comission to strengthen social security. He also Contributed to Bush Cheney 04 and gave over $30,000 in contributions to Republicans.
http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_political_donations/Richard_Parsons.php

Time Warner also contributed to Grover Norquist's Group American's For Tax Reform. Aol's founder Jim Kinsey is a major Repub fundraiser. Steve Case has given millions to a Florida Anti-Gay ministry. From Republican Noise Machine pp 218 219

Ruport Murdoch: He owns 175 newspapers, including the New York Post and the British daily The Times. In the United States, he owns Twentieth Century Fox Studios, Fox Network, and 35 TV stations that reach more than 40 percent-or roughly 118 million-of the country's 300 million inhabitants. His cable channels include the fast-growing 24-hour news channel Fox News and at least 19 regional sports channels. Murdoch even controls satellite dishes worldwide through his ownership of DirecTV.

Public records indicate that over the years Murdoch has given $130,600 to the Republican Party, $35,500 to the Democratic Party, $55,044 in soft money contributions, and $44,394 to special interest groups.
http://www.hpronline.org/media/paper450/news/2005/04/28/Cover/Lord-Of.The.Fourth.Estate-947501.shtml

News Corp (Fox et al)
$77,875
8% Dem
92% Rep
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/contrib.asp?Ind=B02&cycle=2006

Viacom (CBS) Viacom Inc
$189,137
45% Dem
55% Rep
ibid

Disney (ABC ESPN)
Walt Disney Co
$165,534
37% Dem
63% Rep
ibid


Westwood One
$50,000
0% Dem
100% Rep

ibid

Comcast Corp
$389,350
46% Dem
54% Rep
ibid


General Electric
$17,775
38% Dem
62% Rep

ibid

GE (NBC) gave over 63% to Republican candidates - $898,606.00 in 2000

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...al+Electric+pac+contribution&hl=en&lr=lang_en

That's pretty weak. All you did was show that corporations give approximately the same amount to Democrats and Republicans. What about content? What about issue advocacy? What about helping Dems get elected? What about the stories that don't get reported at all? What about the NPR scandal? This is the second time that I'm asking you about that one. Are you unaware of it, or are you simply choosing not to respond?

 

[mpg]

"What I'm trying to say here is that if the media is so liberal, then we should see overwhelming support for Gore, rather than the other way around in overall media coverage. I do think a good journalist can and should put aside his/her political leanings to tell a straight story."

I did see overwhelming support for Gore in the media coverage.

"The media painted Gore as a pathological liar who "invented the internet" and other crazy ****. The NY Times, the Boston Globe, the Washington Post and many other so called "liberal" papers slatherered affection on AWOL Bush, and abused Al Gore. TV was worse than print, if anything. Check the archives at www.DailyHowler.com to see the pundits, writers, and columnists calling Gore a pathological liar, selfish, ruthless, and worse."

Gore claimed that he invented the internet, that the book Love Story was written about him, and that he brought the Love Canal to national attention. These claims got very little coverage in the media. They were mainl covered by columnists and pundits in opinion pieces. It's not like they were discussed nightly on news broadcasts, they way that Bush's mispronunciations were.

"Too many Americans assume the media is fair, if not biased in favor of the Democrats and liberals. This is taken for granted, and allows right wing politicians to hypocritically cite the same sources that they slam when it fits their agenda."

Most Americans assume that the media is fair because they're too lazy to analyze the content. People who follow the news closely, see the way that they present opinions as facts. I have one friend who's a liberal Democrat, and even she agrees that the media has a strong liberal bias. I have another friend who reads The Nation and describes himself as a socialist, and even he agrees that the media is liberal. Journalism simply isn't the type of career that appeals to conservatives. Trying to find a conservative in a newsroom is like trying to find a liberal in the CIA.

"Most Americans have no idea how connected the corporate media is to the right wing"

According to your own source, they're equally connected to the left wing.

"I see the regular media assault on Democrats and their hypocritical protection of Republicans. A vicious cycle starts with RNC attack faxes filled with lies. These picked up and amplified on right wing radio in print tirades that turn vicious character assassination into "the conventional wisdom."

Gore is nuts / Dean is nuts / McCain is nuts / Liberals are nuts etc. etc."

Can you show us some examples aside from opinion pieces?

 

[hipsterdufus]

That's pretty weak. All you did was show that corporations give approximately the same amount to Democrats and Republicans. What about content? What about issue advocacy?

Actually, it shows that media corps give MORE to republicans.

What about helping Dems get elected?

What are you asking here?

What about the stories that don't get reported at all?

and here? Are you talking about, Disney killing negative stories about them on ABC, or Walmart doing the same? Are you talking about the Armstrong Williams payola scandal?

What about the NPR scandal?

What's that?

This is the second time that I'm asking you about that one. Are you unaware of it, or are you simply choosing not to respond?

I need more information to respond. Seriously.

 

[mpg]

"Actually, it shows that media corps give MORE to republicans."

Read your own link. It says that 52% of the donations went to the Democrats and 48% to the Republicans.

"What about helping Dems get elected?
What are you asking here?"

I'm merely pointing out that you're focused on the corporations that own the various media outlets and ignoring the content of broadcasts, newspapers, etc. I can make a list of examples where the media helped Democratic candidates. Would you like me to?

"What about the stories that don't get reported at all?
and here?"

There are many examples of stories that were only reported by alternate media outlets and ignored by the mainstream media. Bill clinton's cocaine useage is a good example. There are other examples. Would you like me to make a list?

"Are you talking about, Disney killing negative stories about them on ABC, or Walmart doing the same?"

Those are good examples of corporations influencing coverage to serve their own financial interests. I disapprove of it, but I wouldn't call it conservative or pro-Republican.

"Are you talking about the Armstrong Williams payola scandal?"

I'm not familiar with that. Can you fill me in?

"I need more information to respond. Seriously."

The campaign finance scandal of 1996 was actually many scandals. One of them was an illegal swap of donor lists by the DNC and PBS (or maybe it was NPR). Why would the DNC campaign finance committee want NPR's list of donors? Obviously they thought that NPR donors would also donate to the DNC, and NPR thought that DNC donors would also donate to NPR.

 

[cnredd]

The campaign finance scandal of 1996 was actually many scandals. One of them was an illegal swap of donor lists by the DNC and PBS (or maybe it was NPR). Why would the DNC campaign finance committee want NPR's list of donors? Obviously they thought that NPR donors would also donate to the DNC, and NPR thought that DNC donors would also donate to NPR.

It was 1999...screwed up my search for a few minutes...It was something I hadn't heard about until you brought it up...

Congress reacts hotly to station donor-list swaps with Democrats
Originally published in Current, July 19, 1999

By Steve Behrens

Suddenly, pubcasting is in for a severe talking-to, if not a whupping. The House subcommittee that held such a congenial hearing on CPB's long-overdue reauthorization a fortnight earlier is now preparing a second hearing July 20 to take pubcasters to task for swapping donor mailing lists with the Democratic Party.

http://www.current.org/mo/mo913s.html

 

[Grendel]

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.

So because they're moderates and liberals the news must be moderate or liberal?

You are making an ASSUMPTION that because the big dogs are Republican, they CANNOT be objective and force their reporters and journalists to adhere to their line of thinking

You are implying that because they are Republican controlled, they are Republican "slanted"...You have not shown proof of this...

Because they're Republicans the news must be . . . oh, wait. That's only good for one side.

 

[mpg]

So because they're moderates and liberals the news must be moderate or liberal?



Because they're Republicans the news must be . . . oh, wait. That's only good for one side.

By all means. Let's discuss the content. Can you counter the first post? What about Dan Rather? How bout Peter Arnett?

 

[hipsterdufus]

"Are you talking about the Armstrong Williams payola scandal?"

I'm not familiar with that. Can you fill me in?

Armstrong Williams and other paid pundits by the Whitehouse are the basis for my signature: "Be careful of what you believe from anyone defending the President's policies. As we know now, some are either being paid off by the administration or are merely actors pretending to be independent reporters."

These phonies were paid with our tax dollars by the Bush Administration to represent positions that they may or may not have had.
They also produced stories for local news shows to play that were actually paid political commercials.

None of these deceptors disclosed the fact that they were paid partisans.

Education Dept. paid commentator to promote law
By Greg Toppo, USA TODAY
Seeking to build support among black families for its education reform law, the Bush administration paid a prominent black pundit $240,000 to promote the law on his nationally syndicated television show and to urge other black journalists to do the same.

In a scoop in today's Washington Post, Howard Kurtz reports that syndicated columnist and pro-wedlock guru Maggie Gallagher had a $21,500 contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to promote the president's $300 million marriage promotion initiative. She also received $20,000 from the Justice Department to write a report titled "Can Government Strengthen Marriage?" for a conservative advocacy group, the National Fatherhood Initiative, the founder of which, Josh Marshall notes, is Wade Horn, the HHS assistant secretary who arranged the first contract. Gallagher never disclosed any of this to her readers.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_01/005523.php

This one about Male Prostitute / White House Correspondent Jeff Gannon:

Media Matters for America revealed that Gannon has, on at least three occasions, written articles for Talon News that "used Bush administration and Republican National Committee (RNC) documents and releases ... verbatim and without attribution. In at least two of his articles, Gannon lifted more than half of the text directly from GOP 'fact sheets.'" During President Bush's press conference this week, Gannon asked Bush a loaded question designed to attack Democrats -- but that question, as Media Matters for America noted, contained factually incorrect assertions lifted from Rush Limbaugh.

Maggie Gallagher and Michael McManus took payments to promote Bush's marriage initiatives, but didn't disclose those payments when they wrote columns advocating the same.

Fake news, part 3: Kristol, Krauthammer provided advice for Bush speech, then lauded it

In light of the Williams, Gallagher, and McManus revelations, Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer must be feeling cheated. After all, the famed conservative commentators were consulted for Bush's inaugural address, then praised it on FOX News -- but they apparently didn't receive any money for their efforts from the Bush administration.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501280011#1

The New York Times reported last week that General Accounting Office investigators were probing the government-sponsored production of television segments in which actors, posing as reporters, filed stories praising the benefits of a newly passed Medicare bill.

http://www.tennessean.com/local/archives/04/03/48558161.shtml

Washington -- Congressional investigators are scrutinizing television segments in which the Bush administration paid people to pose as journalists praising the benefits of the new Medicare law, intended to help elderly Americans with the costs of their prescription medicines.

The videos, a hybrid of advertising and journalism, are intended for use in local television news programs.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/03/15/MNGPG5KODH1.DTL

 

[mpg]

hipsterdufus

Noone is claiming that there are no conservatives in the media. I think that we can all agree that Fox News, The Washington Times, The NY Post, and others, have a conservative pro-Republican slant. That doesn't change the fact that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, The NYT, The Washington Post, USA Today, Time, Newsweek, and others, have a liberal pro-Democrat slant.

 

[Liberal Because I Care]

He does have a point in proving that the media is biased! To be an unbiased news station, they should have used House Majority leader, not House Republican Leader! Though small it may be, impact can be huge to someone with a little common sense and no knowledge fact on politics! Though this may seem a little far out there but it is relivent!

So now you guys want to not have Republicans refered to as "Republicans" in the news???!!! Come on now, you've got to admit you're nit-picking. Republicans will never be happy when it comes to news coverage. Seriously, if you're all really conspiracy nuts over this topic stick to FOX News and live in ignorant bliss. :roll: