Liberal Slant Confronted By Fed Up Conservative

[easyt65]

Supply evidence of your assertion.

BE GLAD TO!

Here's one of many:

http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2005/sum/sum101405.asp

Network coverage has been overwhelmingly pessimistic. More than half of all stories (848, or 61%) focused on negative topics or presented a pessimistic analysis of the situation, four times as many as featured U.S. or Iraqi achievements or offered an optimistic assessment (just 211 stories, or 15%).

News about the war has grown increasingly negative. In January and February, about a fifth of all network stories (21%) struck a hopeful note, while just over half presented a negative slant on the situation. By August and September, positive stories had fallen to a measly seven percent and the percentage of bad news stories swelled to 73 percent of all Iraq news, a ten-to-one disparity.

Terrorist attacks are the centerpiece of TV’s war news. Two out of every five network evening news stories (564) featured car bombings, assassinations, kidnappings or other attacks launched by the terrorists against the Iraqi people or coalition forces, more than any other topic.

Even coverage of the Iraqi political process has been negative. More stories (124) focused on shortcomings in Iraq’s political process — the danger of bloodshed during the January elections, political infighting among politicians, and fears that the new Iraqi constitution might spur more civil strife — than found optimism in the Iraqi people’s historic march to democracy (92 stories). One-third of those optimistic stories (32) appeared on just two nights — January 30 and 31, just after Iraq’s first successful elections.

Few stories focused on the heroism or generous actions of American soldiers. Just eight stories were devoted to recounting episodes of heroism or valor by U.S. troops, and another nine stories featured instances when soldiers reached out to help the Iraqi people. In contrast, 79 stories focused on allegations of combat mistakes or outright misconduct on the part of U.S. military personnel.

It’s not as if there was no “good news” to report. NBC’s cameras found a bullish stock market and a hiring boom in Baghdad’s business district, ABC showcased the coalition’s successful effort to bring peace to a Baghdad thoroughfare once branded “Death Street,” and CBS documented how the one-time battleground of Sadr City is now quiet and citizens are beginning to benefit from improved public services. Stories describing U.S. and Iraqi achievements provided essential context to the discouraging drumbeat of daily news, but were unfortunately just a small sliver of TV’s Iraq news.

 

[aps]

So this is one opinion based on research and not even soliciting people's opinions (which you implied), and it appears that this organization was looking to justify this opinion.

As stated previously in this thread, this is what kind of news is usually reported. The McKinney situation was on the news today, and I didn't see any news on the Members of Congress who DON'T hit the Capitol police. People want to hear the bad stuff because it's more interesting.

Take WMDs. All the newspapers, even the Washington Post and the New York Times, were reporting about WMDs being in Iraq. During that time, however, there were stories that would establish doubt that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting nuclear WMDs or even that he was NOT. Where were those stories? People complain that those stories were not reported. Who cares about that? It's more interesting to read about WMDs existing than NOT existing. It goes both ways, easy. So for you to say that there is a liberal slant is not credible, in my eyes. This is war. People are more interested in hearing about who is getting killed, what places are getting bombed, etc. That is just a fact of life.

 

[easyt65]

So this is one opinion based on research and not even soliciting people's opinions (which you implied), and it appears that this organization was looking to justify this opinion.

Nice monolog attempting to discredit the facts that you are unwilling to acknowledge. (where was that link of your again? )

 

[cnredd]

So this is one opinion based on research and not even soliciting people's opinions (which you implied), and it appears that this organization was looking to justify this opinion.

As stated previously in this thread, this is what kind of news is usually reported. The McKinney situation was on the news today, and I didn't see any news on the Members of Congress who DON'T hit the Capitol police. People want to hear the bad stuff because it's more interesting.

Take WMDs. All the newspapers, even the Washington Post and the New York Times, were reporting about WMDs being in Iraq. During that time, however, there were stories that would establish doubt that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting nuclear WMDs or even that he was NOT. Where were those stories? People complain that those stories were not reported. Who cares about that? It's more interesting to read about WMDs existing than NOT existing. It goes both ways, easy. So for you to say that there is a liberal slant is not credible, in my eyes. This is war. People are more interested in hearing about who is getting killed, what places are getting bombed, etc. That is just a fact of life.

It's been awhile since I threw this one out...You probably haven't seen it before...

THEE most objective source on the net...Pew Research...

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

Notice the chart...The media is 14% MORE Liberal than the general public -20%/34%...But 26% LESS Conservtive than the general public - 33%/7%

This is a SELF-RATING...It's what people consider themselves...

It's a shame when the National newspeople consider themselves overtly Liberal, but defenders of them tell us they're not...

 

[aps]

It's been awhile since I threw this one out...You probably haven't seen it before...

THEE most objective source on the net...Pew Research...


Notice the chart...The media is 14% MORE Liberal than the general public -20%/34%...But 26% LESS Conservtive than the general public - 33%/7%

This is a SELF-RATING...It's what people consider themselves...

It's a shame when the National newspeople consider themselves overtly Liberal, but defenders of them tell us they're not...

I am happy to accept these results, but then let's admit that the perception is across the board--not just with the news regarding Iraq.

 

[easyt65]

I am happy to accept these results, but then let's admit that the perception is across the board--not just with the news regarding Iraq.

Oh, I would definitey agree that the results across the board pretty much show most of the major media are liberally slanted.

 

[cnredd]

I am happy to accept these results, but then let's admit that the perception is across the board--not just with the news regarding Iraq.

I've never said otherwise....

 

[aps]

I've never said otherwise....

Oh, I know you have not. :2wave:

 

[aquapub]

1) As stated previously in this thread, this is what kind of news is usually reported. The McKinney situation was on the news today, and I didn't see any news on the Members of Congress who DON'T hit the Capitol police. People want to hear the bad stuff because it's more interesting.

2)Take WMDs. All the newspapers, even the Washington Post and the New York Times, were reporting about WMDs being in Iraq. During that time, however, there were stories that would establish doubt that Saddam Hussein was reconstituting nuclear WMDs or even that he was NOT. Where were those stories?

1) The media WILL chase a story if it is juicy enough, even if it is sometimes Democrats who get burned, but when a story isn't screaming out to be covered, they take their cues from the New York Times and put unmistakable liberal spin on things.

2) They were reporting on them being there because they were. No one here or in Europe (except Michael Moore and other liberal conspiracy theorists) would buy that contrary to all the facts, Saddam was actually already disarmed and just frivolously trying to get himself sanctioned/attacked by expelling inspectors.

Give me a break.

 

[aquapub]

It's been awhile since I threw this one out...You probably haven't seen it before...

THEE most objective source on the net...Pew Research...


Notice the chart...The media is 14% MORE Liberal than the general public -20%/34%...But 26% LESS Conservtive than the general public - 33%/7%

This is a SELF-RATING...It's what people consider themselves...

It's a shame when the National newspeople consider themselves overtly Liberal, but defenders of them tell us they're not...

To add to your point, here is a post of mine from another thread that further deflates the bogus excuses often used to defend the media:





1) If one person at the top of a corporation being a conservative means that that conservative must be telling all the Democrat activists and operative news directors, producers, reporters and anchors (see #3 for proof that they are operatives and activists) who run every level of the news that they must report the news in specific ways that slant the news for conservatives (which, if this was happening, which it isn't, I kind of suspect the liberal activists might occasionally complain about it when they leave news companies, but that never happens...hmmmm....wonder why), then you MUST admit that CNN's last few decades under liberal wacko Ted Turner must mean that CNN has been slanted to the left all this time.

You can't have it both ways. The left's "reasoning" on this contradicts itself.


2) So I guess when the Associated Press touted their new multi-million-dollar VNS machine (Voter News Service) as a rock solid reliable indicator of which way elections were going and then called Florida early and incorrectly for Gore while this very same VNS machine had Bush ahead by two points, that must have been a fluke, right?

Or when Dan Rather called a leak about Clinton's pending indictment, "Republican backed" and, "well-orchestrated," only to find out the next day that a LIBERAL judge appointed by JIMMY CARTER ACCIDENTALLY leaked the information, that must have been another innocent oopsy too, huh?

I have hundreds...literally hundreds of these "coincidences." I know this is an alien concept to liberals, but people who operate on facts and evidence instead of hysterics and conspiracy theories don't accept that many coincidences.


3)

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.


-Not the New York Times, not the Washington Post, NONE of the major papers have endorsed a single Republican presidential candidate since Eisenhower.

-What about all the studies done by respectable, non-partisan groups proving a huge liberal tilt among reporters, anchors, news directors and producers?

 

[hipsterdufus]

Laura Ingraham took on NBC, David Gregory, and bitter, Golem-looking fanatic, James Carville about the media's extremely negative slant against the war, their unwillingness to report from anywhere but their balconies, and how rarely they interview Iraqis on the streets-because THAT would tell a much more positive story.

To demonstrate how reporters having a little backbone and some balance would give the public a more accurate depiction of things, she went there for a while and reported the way professional journalists are supposed to-actually showing multiple sides of the issues.

The first link is partial transcript. The second is a report on their grossly inadequate, "clearly stung" response.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1601065/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1600861/posts

How do you think the Freepers, Fox, or even the entire media would be covering the war if Kerry had won? Do you really think they'd be showing little puppies running around in Falujah all day long? Let's say a Dem wins in 08 - happy coverage starting 1-20-09 ?

Did Vietnam coverage change from happy talk to reality the day Nixon took office?



Get real?

It's like, New York and LA are on fire, but let's cut to DesMoines where we have exclusive photos of the worlds largest potato. If it bleeds it leads.

 

[aps]

Did anyone see Laura Ingraham on the Chris Matthews Show yesterday? He has had multiple guests on his show providing commentary. I have never seen someone so rude on that show in my life. Talk about an angry woman. She got upset and called them all "elitists." Awww, poor, Laura. She can't take it when people say something with which she doesn't agree. That says a lot about her. :lol:

 

[akyron]

Hey! He does kind of look like Gollum...my preciousssss.

 

[ptsdkid]

Did anyone see Laura Ingraham on the Chris Matthews Show yesterday? He has had multiple guests on his show providing commentary. I have never seen someone so rude on that show in my life. Talk about an angry woman. She got upset and called them all "elitists." Awww, poor, Laura. She can't take it when people say something with which she doesn't agree. That says a lot about her. :lol:

***I didn't see that particular show. But Laura is one of my favorites. If she got mad, its because of the partasin take on news. She and Ann Coulter are my two favorite heroines....next to you aps...of course.

 

[aps]

***I didn't see that particular show. But Laura is one of my favorites. If she got mad, its because of the partasin take on news. She and Ann Coulter are my two favorite heroines....next to you aps...of course.

Aww, shucks, ptsdkid. Thank you. :blushing:

 

[hipsterdufus]

Hey! He does kind of look like Gollum...my preciousssss.

ROTFL. Carville has a face made for radio (that's why he's on TV all the time, with little mamby pamby Allan Colmes)

Recently, Carville's wife has that Vulcan look going for her too. What a sci-fi pair!

 

[akyron]

ROTFL. Carville has a face made for radio (that's why he's on TV all the time, with little mamby pamby Allan Colmes)

Recently, Carville's wife has that Vulcan look going for her too. What a sci-fi pair!




Aha!
Her ears are tucked into her hair.
Spock used that trick all the time in the old show.
Shes old school tricky.

 

[aquapub]

How do you think the Freepers, Fox, or even the entire media would be covering the war if Kerry had won? Do you really think they'd be showing little puppies running around in Falujah all day long? Let's say a Dem wins in 08 - happy coverage starting 1-20-09 ?

Did Vietnam coverage change from happy talk to reality the day Nixon took office?



Get real?

It's like, New York and LA are on fire, but let's cut to DesMoines where we have exclusive photos of the worlds largest potato. If it bleeds it leads.

That excuse only gets you so far. You cannot defend perpetual negativity without exception by merely saying train wrecks are more exciting. Journalists are supposed to have a shred or two of objectivity. It seems far more likely to me that the media's obssessing against this war is more about the media's long legacy of objecting to anything that serves America's interest.

As for the Vietnam point, we were attacking an American enemy in Vietnam. That offense trumps all other concerns to our Leftist media, so yes, they reported negatively EVEN when their favored Democrats were in office.

Incidentally, I typed in, "New York Times War Iraq" earlier and got an interesting column on just how biased the Times have been against the war...

http://www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/welcome.cgi

 

[Donkey1499]

The picture that I use for my avatar (which no one, except americanwoman, has noticed yet) shows what kind of stuff you'll never see on the mainstream media, even FOX! You know why? Cuz it shows a soldier actually being nice to something. The soldier ain't shooting people or "murdering, thieving, or raping" anyone (like some on the left like to say; >Cough< Durbin >cough< >cough<). They're petting a kitten. I had to FIND that picture. I haven't seen it on any news outlet that's considered mainstream.

 

[Gibberish]

The picture that I use for my avatar (which no one, except americanwoman, has noticed yet) shows what kind of stuff you'll never see on the mainstream media, even FOX! You know why? Cuz it shows a soldier actually being nice to something. The soldier ain't shooting people or "murdering, thieving, or raping" anyone (like some on the left like to say; >Cough< Durbin >cough< >cough<). They're petting a kitten. I had to FIND that picture. I haven't seen it on any news outlet that's considered mainstream.

I am in the marketing field and here is my opinion on the mindset of an average viewer on a solider petting a kitten.
"aww how cute, he's petting a kitty", click (changes channel)

Here is the mindset of a viewer watching soldiers in the middle of a battle.
"oh my god, look at all the fighting", keeps watching to see the resolution of the situation.

The point is the whole thing plays out as a basic storyline. Education, Conflict, Conclusion. With the kitten story the first two are bypassed (education of the situation is already present) so the story ends and the viewers attention needs to move to the next story.

With the battle, the story is played out in order and can be stretched as thin as the storyteller (media) can make it until redundancy is met and attention is lost.

As I have said before the media in today’s world is out for viewers so they can turn a profit by charging sponsors a hefty dollar figure to place commercials during broadcasts. Though story wise they might lean towards the left as many have suggested the bottom line is whatever story will bring in the most viewers and will last the longest will be the one shown.

 

[Donkey1499]

I am in the marketing field and here is my opinion on the mindset of an average viewer on a solider petting a kitten.
"aww how cute, he's petting a kitty", click (changes channel)

Here is the mindset of a viewer watching soldiers in the middle of a battle.
"oh my god, look at all the fighting", keeps watching to see the resolution of the situation.

The point is the whole thing plays out as a basic storyline. Education, Conflict, Conclusion. With the kitten story the first two are bypassed (education of the situation is already present) so the story ends and the viewers attention needs to move to the next story.

With the battle, the story is played out in order and can be stretched as thin as the storyteller (media) can make it until redundancy is met and attention is lost.

As I have said before the media in today’s world is out for viewers so they can turn a profit by charging sponsors a hefty dollar figure to place commercials during broadcasts. Though story wise they might lean towards the left as many have suggested the bottom line is whatever story will bring in the most viewers and will last the longest will be the one shown.

Apparrently your imagination has gone away. What if a terrorist blows the kitty to smitherines? Then the soldier picks up his rifle and avenges the kitty? Wouldn't that be a both happy and sad ending? The soldier, covered in scaps of feline just wastes an evil terrorist. It brings a tear to my eye just thinking about it.....

 

[Gibberish]

Apparrently your imagination has gone away. What if a terrorist blows the kitty to smitherines? Then the soldier picks up his rifle and avenges the kitty? Wouldn't that be a both happy and sad ending? The soldier, covered in scaps of feline just wastes an evil terrorist. It brings a tear to my eye just thinking about it.....

Now your talking forward thinking. You can what-if all stories to death. The point is that is not the story that is being told. The stories in question are a solider petting a kitten vs a soldier in a battle against his enemy.

 

[Donkey1499]

Now your talking forward thinking. You can what-if all stories to death. The point is that is not the story that is being told. The stories in question are a solider petting a kitten vs a soldier in a battle against his enemy.

Now you are making up stories. Since when do soldiers fight in battles?

 

[Gibberish]

Now you are making up stories. Since when do soldiers fight in battles?

Now your just picking at petty things which give no advance meant towards the thread. I'll rephrase for you anyway.

"The stories in question are a solider petting a kitten vs a soldier in a dramatic situation."

 

[Donkey1499]

Now your just picking at petty things which give no advance meant towards the thread. I'll rephrase for you anyway.

"The stories in question are a solider petting a kitten vs a soldier in a dramatic situation."

Don't you know anything of my personality? I'm like the coolest guy on this thread. Even vauge can't beat me in a popularity contest! :mrgreen:

And I want to see soldiers petting kittens. So where's the group that targets me?