Media Bias Poll (1 Viewer)

[aquapub]

1) I would like to suggest an experiment. Turn on your radio to NPR sometime in the morning on your way to work and make a list of each story they tell and what political effect it has.

2) The poll options I have provided are a compiled list of all the stories NPR did today on my morning drive. Vote for all the ones you think generate liberal sentiment.

 

[aquapub]

At least NPR’s stories aren’t as overtly one-sided as the West’s version of Al Jezeera…

Objective coverage from BBC TV:

Recipe for a Cooked Election.

"Project Censored 2007- All About the O.I.L.

Secret U.S. Plans for Iraq's Oil

Heist of Election 2004

Bush Blocked Bin Laden Probes

Theft of the Presidency

Bush Energy Plan: Policy or Payback?

And my personal favorite…How George Bush Gave Crazy Kim The Bomb.(pretty miraculous considering that Kim Jong Il has admitted to developing nukes while the Democrats who appeased him were still in office )

 

[aquapub]

Listen to Diane Rheme today?

She is supposed to be an objective talk show host.

Today she brought in three overtly anti-Bush "journalists" and posed fair and balanced questions like this: "I just think this thing has really become a quagmire and no one seems to be able to explain the false pretenses we went in into this war under. How long do you think [Bush] can keep the country at bay on this war?"

Not one comment or guest was remotely supportive of Bush or the war. On eguest actually referred to the war as,"a lie." Not one showed the other side of the argument.

Then they opened it up to the callers. Keep in mind that NPR screens calers and lets the ones on who they want to let on...

1st caller: Bush should have to apologize for Iraq.
2nd: Don't buy Bush's rhetoric
3rd: Iraq is a sham
4th: media is suppressing bad news coming out of Iraq

11 callers in total. NOT ONE had anything but the very most liberal things to say.

Liberal radio only survives when it is publicly funded. Mainstream, sensible people don't listen to this garbage very long.

 

[Kandahar]

U.S. body count in Iraq

Since when did reporting factual information become a partisan issue? :roll:

Enron executive getting sentenced

What does an Enron executive getting sentenced even have to do with politics? What exactly are you implying about your own party if you feel threatened by this story?

 

[hipsterdufus]

Since when did reporting factual information become a partisan issue? :roll:

What does an Enron executive getting sentenced even have to do with politics? What exactly are you implying about your own party if you feel threatened by this story?

Maybe Aquapub would like NPR to be talking about missing white girls and Madonna's adoption. :roll:

 

[Joby]

I suggest listening to talk radio and listening to how any argument at all gets treated by the hosts.

- * Bush administration payment of columnists - The Bush White House payment of public funds to right-wing media commentators by several U.S. executive departments under Cabinet officials to promote various policies of U.S. President George W. Bush's administration. Thousands of dollars were paid to at least three commentators to promote Bush administration policies. This includes Armstrong Williams, Maggie Gallagher, and Michael McManus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism_scandals#Bush_administration_journalism_scandals_.282005.29

Note the PUBLIC FUNDS part.

What a nice little propoganda machine we have

 

[aquapub]

1) Since when did reporting factual information become a partisan issue? :roll:

2) What does an Enron executive getting sentenced even have to do with politics? What exactly are you implying about your own party if you feel threatened by this story?

1) Reporting factual information is not the same thing as neurotically reminding us every five minutes of what the war is costing us.

2) NPR has reported on all things Enron constantly, for years now...liberals are always obssessed with class warfare.

 

[aquapub]

Note the PUBLIC FUNDS part.

And this has what to do with the left's inability to stay in business without government aid?

Nothing.

This scandal was about getting pundits to promote certain issues. Completely irrelevant.

 

[Kandahar]

1) Reporting factual information is not the same thing as neurotically reminding us every five minutes of what the war is costing us.

God forbid people be reminded of the facts, when forming their opinions.

2) NPR has reported on all things Enron constantly, for years now...liberals are always obssessed with class warfare.

You think that the crimes of Enron's top executives are about class warfare? It sounds to me like YOU are the one obsessed with class warfare.

 

[Billo_Really]

The media is totally and completely conservative based! To think anything different is a total joke!

 

[AcePylut]

It is pretty funny to see how biased against the GOP the major media outlets are.

Like the Abramhoff scandal. Was big news for the first couple of weeks, when all the targets were GOP. But then it came out that the Dems were just as involved... and blammo... to the back of the pages went the scandal.

As one example of a billion that are available detailing the blatant media bias.

Or even better...

Here's the BBC admitting its liberal bias via dailyuk:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411846&in_page_id=1770

It was the day that a host of BBC executives and star presenters admitted what critics have been telling them for years: the BBC is dominated by trendy, Left-leaning liberals who are biased against Christianity and in favour of multiculturalism.

A leaked account of an 'impartiality summit' called by BBC chairman Michael Grade, is certain to lead to a new row about the BBC and its reporting on key issues, especially concerning Muslims and the war on terror.

It reveals that executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC's 'diversity tsar', wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air.

At the secret meeting in London last month, which was hosted by veteran broadcaster Sue Lawley, BBC executives admitted the corporation is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.

One veteran BBC executive said: 'There was widespread acknowledgement that we may have gone too far in the direction of political correctness.

'Unfortunately, much of it is so deeply embedded in the BBC's culture, that it is very hard to change it.'

In one of a series of discussions, executives were asked to rule on how they would react if the controversial comedian Sacha Baron Cohen
) known for his offensive characters Ali G and Borat - was a guest on the programme Room 101.

On the show, celebrities are invited to throw their pet hates into a dustbin and it was imagined that Baron Cohen chose some kosher food, the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Bible and the Koran.

Nearly everyone at the summit, including the show's actual producer and the BBC's head of drama, Alan Yentob, agreed they could all be thrown into the bin, except the Koran for fear of offending Muslims.

In a debate on whether the BBC should interview Osama Bin Laden if he approached them, it was decided the Al Qaeda leader would be given a platform to explain his views.

And the BBC's 'diversity tsar', Mary Fitzpatrick, said women newsreaders should be able to wear whatever they wanted while on TV, including veils.

Ms Fitzpatrick spoke out after criticism was raised at the summit of TV newsreader Fiona Bruce, who recently wore on air a necklace with a cross.

The full account of the meeting shows how senior BBC figures queued up to lambast their employer.

Political pundit Andrew Marr said: 'The BBC is not impartial or neutral. It's a publicly funded, urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people, ethnic minorities and gay people. It has a liberal bias not so much a party-political bias. It is better expressed as a cultural liberal bias.'

Washington correspondent Justin Webb said that the BBC is so biased against America that deputy director general Mark Byford had secretly agreed to help him to 'correct', it in his reports. Webb added that the BBC treated America with scorn and derision and gave it 'no moral weight'.

Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a 'very senior news executive', about the BBC's pro-multicultural stance but was given the reply: 'The BBC is not neutral in multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it.'

Randall also told how he once wore Union Jack cufflinks to work but was rebuked with: 'You can't do that, that's like the National Front!'

Quoting a George Orwell observation, Randall said that the BBC was full of intellectuals who 'would rather steal from a poor box than stand to attention during God Save The King'.

There was another heated debate when the summit discussed whether the BBC was too sensitive about criticising black families for failing to take responsibility for their children.

Head of news Helen Boaden disclosed that a Radio 4 programme which blamed black youths at a young offenders', institution for bullying white inmates faced the axe until she stepped in.

But Ms Fitzpatrick, who has said that the BBC should not use white reporters in non-white countries, argued it had a duty to 'contextualise' why black youngsters behaved in such a way.

Andrew Marr told The Mail on Sunday last night: 'The BBC must always try to reflect Britain, which is mostly a provincial, middle-of-the-road country. Britain is not a mirror image of the BBC or the people who work for it.'

-----

And now I'll wait for the typical slandering and weak logical fallacies that dominate internet debate... and ignore them.

------

Oh bugger me, I didn't read the last poll question fully, and clicked on it.

------

 

[Morrow]

The emotional response of the reader/listener doesn't constitute bias on the part of the reporter. Your entire premise is flawed.

 

[AcePylut]

The emotional response of the reader/listener doesn't constitute bias on the part of the reporter.

I tend to disagree, sort of,... witness Dan Rather's reporting of the 2000 Florida election...

Whenever he referred to the USSC, he always referenced it with caveats like "the majority republican appointed USSC" "a majority of USSC were appointed by the Repubs", etc.etc. etc.... However, when referring to the Florida State Supreme court, not once did he call it the "Democrat appointed FSSC" or "the Florida State Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Democrats".

As a result, you've got all these moveon types upset about how the "GOP USSC selected Bush" but not "The DNC FSSC selected Gore".

Where i would disagree with your statement is that unbiased reporting "puts all the facts out for investigation" for the viewer to decide, and sometimes those a careful examination of all the facts generate an emotional response... however, biased reporting is only putting out "some" or "none" of the facts so that an emotional response IS generated and is geared towards a specific point of view that the reporter holds. The reporter did not present all the facts in effort to generate that emotive response in the viewer, which drops their rationality thus rendering them open to 'suggestions' that the 'reporter' may have to 'fix' whatever caused the emotional response. Biased reporting is propaganda at it's finest and most subtle nature.


Also, go check out: www.ratherbiased.com for a pretty decent detailing of Dan Rather's bias.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Ive been asking for quite sometime now for a link showing how the media criticized Clintons interrogation techniques that were in place during his hawkish campaign to protect America from terrorists. (a campaign the left insists took place)

I have yet to see one.

Cleary the media has an agenda.

 

[AcePylut]

http://www.ratherbiased.com/florida.htm

Florida Supreme Court

After responding so well to the Gore campaign's strategy of depicting Katherine Harris as a partisan Republican, Dan Rather and his CBS colleagues resisted portraying the Florida Supreme Court as being ideologically motivated, despite the fact that all of its seven members were Democrats.

Below is the context of every mention Rather and his colleagues made of the Florida Supreme Court. Even though Republicans accused the state court of political favoritism, Rather decided only once to reveal the party affiliation of the Florida judges, a marked contrast to his regular labeling of the U.S. Supreme Court as Republican-dominated:

"This is a CBS New Special report. Dan Rather at CBS News election headquarters in New York. Bulletin from Florida: The Florida state supreme court is reported to have rejected the state—secretary of state's request to have the court order a stop to the recount. The Florida state supreme court refuses to stop the recount of votes in certain Florida counties. We'll have more later, but this is an important bulletin."
—Dan Rather during a CBS News Special Report, November 15, 2000.

"Vote recounts by hand are now under way in disputed counties after the state supreme court cleared the way."
—Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, November 15, 2000.

"Dateline: Florida. Florida's state supreme court has ruled that there is no—I repeat, no legal reason why counties can't do hand recounts of their votes."
—Dan Rather during a CBS News Special Report, November 16, 2000.

"Full-court press in the Florida thriller. 'Round it goes in the courts. Where it stops, possibly the U.S. Supreme Court. Here's the latest. The Florida state supreme court rules disputed counties can go ahead with their hand counts and recounts of votes."
—Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, November 16, 2000.

"Tonight, Bush point man Jim Baker downplayed today's Florida Supreme Court decision allowing hand counts and recounts."
—Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, November 16, 2000.

"How swiftly things have moved today. Bush with a big win with the local Democratic judge who backed the Republican state secretary of state's determination to certify a vote tomorrow, and without any of the newly counted or recounted votes. [. . .] Then, as the day goes along, the state supreme court in Florida says, 'We're going to hear the'—on a sort of quick basis—I wouldn't say emergency basis, although that's what it amounted to—'We're going to hear the Gore campaign's appeal that we, the Supreme Court, should decide this matter.'"
—Dan Rather during a CBS News Special Report, November 17, 2000.
Note: Rather correctly pointed out the party affiliation of Harris and circuit judge Terry Lewis, but not that of the Florida Supreme Court justices.

"It was a pivotal showdown day in Florida's highest state court, and a ruling expected as soon as tomorrow could determine whether George Bush or Al Gore wins Florida, and thus the presidency. Here's the latest. Lawyers for Bush and Gore were peppered with dozens of questions by the justices of the Florida state supreme court."
—Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, November 20, 2000.

"The Florida state supreme court has reversed the lower court order and the dictum, if you will, of the Florida state secretary of state. This court says the right of the people to cast their vote is paramount and, therefore, hand counts are to be tallied into the final official Florida count insofar as hand counts are complete by 5 p.m. November 26, which is Sunday."
—Dan Rather during a CBS News Special Report, November 21, 2000.

"For those of you who may just joining us, the Florida state supreme court, the highest court in the state of Florida, has spoken. It overrides the decision of the secretary of state and a lower court judge and says that hand recounting must be counted in the final tally, whatever hand recounting can be done by 5 p.m. November 26th, this coming Sunday."
—Dan Rather during a CBS News Special Report, November 21, 2000.

Bush and Gore attorneys pled their cases before the U.S. Supreme Court in Bush's appeal of the Florida Supreme Court's first recount ruling:
"At issue: Bush's contention that the Florida state supreme court violated the U.S. Constitution when it extended the deadline for Florida counties to report their presidential vote counts."
—Dan Rather during a CBS News Special Report, December 1, 2000.

"Professor [Jonathan Turley], there are people who will consider this question out of line, but since the question was raised in Florida about the secretary of state being not just a Republican, but an active backer of George Bush and not recusing herself, and there were those who raised questions about the state supreme court having mostly, if not entirely Democrats on the state supreme court. On this court, you have a majority of justices appointed by Republican presidents, including Governor Bush's father, who made appointments to the court, why, if we are not—if we are to believe—why would we believe that politics would not enter into these justices' decisions whatsoever?"
—Dan Rather during a CBS News Special Report, December 1, 2000.
Note: This was the only time Dan Rather ever mentioned the Florida Supreme Court was dominated by Democratic justices.

The Florida supreme court overturned circuit court judge N. Sanders Sauls's ruling denying Gore's contest of Florida's certified vote totals, saying that all counties must attempt to count ballots which did not previously register a vote for president:
"Vice President Gore's hopes remain alive, at least for the time being. This decision, 4-to-3, by the Florida state supreme court breathes new life into Vice President Al Gore's chances. Doesn't mean he's gonna win the election. Does mean that his hopes remain alive."
—Dan Rather during a CBS News Special Report, December 8, 2000.

"[T]his is a banner headline of the evening and will be tomorrow: Florida state supreme court reverses a lower Florida court and rules in favor of Al Gore. This opens up many possibilities and, very quickly now, Jonathan Turley, the Bush people will appeal this to the United States Supreme Court you think fairly quickly. The Florida state Legislature, which is already in session and has—it's dominated by Republicans, has said it's going to select its own state of electors to ensure the presidency for Bush."
—Dan Rather during a CBS News Special Report, December 8, 2000.

"Now because—the Florida Supreme Court says because time is of the essence, the recount will commence immediately. That was according to the court, as passed along by the spokesman, Craig Waters. Now George Bush was officially certified the winner of Florida's 25 electoral votes by the state's Republican secretary of state."
—Dan Rather during a CBS News Special Report, December 8, 2000.

"The Florida state supreme court has ruled 4-to-3—couldn't be any closer decision—in favor of Vice President Al Gore's position as was argued by David Boies, his lead attorney, that the lower Florida court, in a decision by a Democratic judge who'd been appointed by a Republican and, by the way, a judge who'd had trouble previously with the Florida—with the Florida Supreme Court.
—Dan Rather during a CBS News Special Report, December 8, 2000.

"Now George Bush was officially certified the winner of Florida's 25 electoral votes by the state's Republican secretary of state. Al Gore went into court, stopped protesting and started officially and legally contesting that. The—a lower court ruled for George Bush. Now the s—Florida state supreme court has reversed that and says the lower court was wrong and has ruled for Al Gore."
—Dan Rather during a CBS News Special Report, December 8, 2000.

"The court also ordered several hundred votes added to Gore's tally—these are votes taken away earlier, by Gore's contention. This knocks Bush's Florida margin down now to 154. Bush will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has a majority of Republican-appointed justices."
—Dan Rather during a CBS News Special Report, December 8, 2000.

"Bush is asking the high court to overturn Friday's decision by the Florida state supreme court ordering a hand count of thousands of ballots, ballots Gore says have never been counted; Bush says they've been counted two, three, maybe four times."
—Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, December 11, 2000.

 

[AcePylut]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


U.S. Supreme Court
While Rather only once revealed the party affiliations of the judges on the Florida Supreme Court, he routinely chose to mention that Republicans appointed most justices of the U.S. Supreme Court:

"Now the Supreme Court, which is made up of seven justices appointed by Republican presidents, including a couple appointed by Governor George Bush's father, George Bush, the elder, who was president, has ruled in favor of Bush. The vote on the Supreme Court was unanimous."
—Dan Rather during a CBS News Special Report, December 4, 2000.

Dan Rather discussed Bush's options after losing their contest case in the Florida supreme court:
"[O]n the political option, he has—his brother is the governor of Florida. The Florida state Legislature is not just a majority. It dominated by Republicans. The U.S. Supreme Court has seven of nine justices appointed by Republican presidents. And the U.S. House of Representatives, while it's close, is controlled by the Republicans."
—Dan Rather during a CBS News Special Report, December 8, 2000.

"Bush will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has a majority of Republican-appointed justices."
—Dan Rather during a CBS News Special Report, December 8, 2000.

"Since the U.S. Supreme Court has seven of nine justices appointed by Republican presidents, why should one not believe that they're going to overturn this Florida state supreme court decision today and pretty quickly?"
—Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, December 8, 2000.

"The Supreme Court, of course, is made up of nine justices. Seven of these justices were appointed by Republican presidents. Two appointed by President Reagan—that would be Justice O'Connor and Justice Kennedy—are considered possible swing votes, possible swing votes."
—Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, December 11, 2000.

"What about the justices themselves? There were headlines over the weekend and this morning indicating, well, depending on what they decide, they could taint the next president and—and also taint the court. Are justices affected by that kind of reaction to their sudden move on Saturday to shut the counting down?"
—Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, December 11, 2000.

"Florida's heavily Republican state Legislature is now holding off final action on trying to ensure Florida's electors go for Bush, waiting to see if the high court, in effect, does so itself."
—Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, December 11, 2000.

"This comes 24 hours after a sharply split and, some say, politically and ideologically motivated U.S. Supreme Court ended Vice President Gore's contest of the Florida election and, in effect, handed the presidency to Bush."
—Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, December 13, 2000.

The Florida Supreme Court declared today that lawmakers, not judges, should be responsible for setting standards for hand counting ballots in disputed elections. This came as a response to the United States Supreme Court, which cut off hand counting in Florida partly, it said, because the counters were given no clear ground rules. That ruling by the predominantly Republican US Supreme Court, in effect, made George Bush the president-elect, but it does not necessarily mean he got the most votes in Florida.
—Dan Rather on the CBS Evening News, December 22, 2000.

 

[Gibberish]

1st caller: Bush should have to apologize for Iraq.
2nd: Don't buy Bush's rhetoric
3rd: Iraq is a sham
4th: media is suppressing bad news coming out of Iraq

What is liberal about these four statements? I see them as non-trusting, and thinking the President is mistaken in his leadership. I don't see what any of them link to having a liberal political stance? Just because you believe someone to be wrong does not mean you are politically a liberal.

 

[AcePylut]

What is liberal about these four statements? I see them as non-trusting, and thinking the President is mistaken in his leadership. I don't see what any of them link to having a liberal political stance? Just because you believe someone to be wrong does not mean you are politically a liberal.

From what I gather of your paragraph, using 'liberal' in your manner is taking the term out of context as it applies to the phrase "liberal media bias".

A more accurately descriptive, but not used, phrase would be "Democrat media bias", however, as noted that phrase is not spoken as its definition as accepted by the populace is interchangeable with "liberal medai bias" with respect to this subject.

What makes these four statements "liberal" (as it is used within the context of the discussion) is that they are all the basic "far left" talking points, and all faulty.

The talking points:

1st Caller: "Admit that going into Iraq was "wrong""
2nd: "Bush Lied"
3rd: "Illegal Invasion"
4th: "Enough with this rosy Iraqi reporting"

(ok, so that last one made me go 'huh'... cuz I can't seem to find any bleeding/leading reports on Iraq, just the ones where we talk about all the schools and hospitals that have been built :shock: )

 

[Morrow]

What makes these four statements "liberal" (as it is used within the context of the discussion) is that they are all the basic "far left" talking points, and all faulty.

The talking points:

1st Caller: "Admit that going into Iraq was "wrong""
2nd: "Bush Lied"
3rd: "Illegal Invasion"
4th: "Enough with this rosy Iraqi reporting"

Explain to me, point by point, if you will how those points are faulty. Especially 1-3.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Explain to me, point by point, if you will how those points are faulty. Especially 1-3.

1. http://www.glennbeck.com/realstory/iraq-video.shtml

sure its wrong, if you ONLY FOCUS ON THE NEGATIVE. hard to deny that much about the war is absolutely RIGHT.

2. I have quotes from 1998 all the way up to 2002 from UN weapons inspectors, democrats, republicans all saying the same exact thing. now either everyone was intentionally lying, or everyone simply got it wrong and made a mistake. IMO, an honest mistake was made.

3. Congress supported the war. plain and simple. authorization was given for the war.
http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

see "Section 1. short title"

now, if you are suggesting it was "illegal" according to international law.....well, its ludicrous to me that America should be held to such a standard while countries like Iraq ignore 17 resolutions.

if you think international law means squat, think of this. august 31 was the deadline for Iran to comply with "international law"

care to let everyone know whats been done since they refused?

absolutely NOTHING.

America can not be held to a standard of "international law" while the rest of the planet thumbs its nose at it and does as it damn well pleases. If that is how things are going to work, its only a matter of time before one of these idiotic countries gets a nuke and uses it.

 

[hipsterdufus]

What is liberal about these four statements? I see them as non-trusting, and thinking the President is mistaken in his leadership. I don't see what any of them link to having a liberal political stance? Just because you believe someone to be wrong does not mean you are politically a liberal.

How has truth seeking and muckraking been labeled as "liberal" ?

I want the press to dig deep on whoever is in power. Period.

 

[aquapub]

The emotional response of the reader/listener doesn't constitute bias on the part of the reporter. Your entire premise is flawed.

If you are referring to the 100% of the NPR listeners who called in with 100% liberal views...NPR filters out all the callers they don't want, so this completely one-sided result is not coincidence.

 

[aquapub]

1 God forbid people be reminded of the facts, when forming their opinions.

2 You think that the crimes of Enron's top executives are about class warfare? It sounds to me like YOU are the one obsessed with class warfare.

1 This would be like the media saying, "Today is Thursday, and it's been 322 days since Clinton said he would do something about the latest Al Queda attack, and the U.S. body count is now up from 455 to 456."

You would call that propagandizing just as any reasonable person calls the minute by minute updates on all things negative in Iraq propagandizing.

2 Associating Enron with Republicans...relentlessly....has been the business of the left for the last few years. It is clearly THEIR obssession (and NPR's).

 

[aquapub]

The media is totally and completely conservative based! To think anything different is a total joke!

EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE FULL OF CRAP:

Most of this can all be verified in about 2 seconds on Google...

95% of the media is run by people who are not only far more liberal on the issues than the American people (which they regularly admit in one non-partisan study after another) but they are also USUALLY former liberal operatives who worked for Democrats in office prior to being trusted to disseminate legitimate 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).

Dee Dee Myers, worked for Bill Clinton (D) and then got hired by Roger Ailes (the evil genius credited with Fox’s “conservative bias”)

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.


-The New York Times (as well as most "mainstream" papers) haven't 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?

-What about the multitude of unexplainable examples I have provided like: Dan Rather calling a leak about Bill Clinton's indictment "well-orchestrated" and "Republican backed," only to find out the next day that a liberal judge appointed by Jimmy Carter ADMITTEDLY, ACCIDENTALLY leaked the information? Where do you suppose Dan got his bad information? It sure as hell wasn't from research. He made it up....because he just as slanted as the rest of the left-wing press. [/quote]

-Think about how the media treated Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers, or any of the other numerous women who accused Bill Clinton of raping or sexually harassing them. Now consider how they treated Anita Hill (who turned out to be lying)…

The Today Show, the New York Times, the Nation magazine, the New Yorker all went after people who spoke out against Hill for committing perjury, Glamour Magazine named Hill “Woman of the Year,” CBS’s Leslie Stahl said Hill “brings out what every woman has always known and doesn’t even talk about…Like Anita Hill, most women don’t stop a guy,” Yale Law school invited her to speak at their organization as did the American Bar Association, Murphy Brown and Designing Women both glorified her, Katie Couric gave her adoring interviews, Ted Turner did a documentary in which she was portrayed in a very positive light called, A Century of Women.

Here are some more examples for you to bury your head in the sand and dissmiss.

-A scientific, scholarly, peer-reviewed study on the calling of states for Bush vs. Gore in Election 2000. Public Choice .

Excerpt:

"Our results support the charge of media bias."

http://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/...tml#statistics


-A study showing that the news media gets the information the report to us from left wing think tanks. Quarterly Journal of Economics.

Excerpt:

"Our results show a strong liberal bias."

http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/...dia.Bias.8.htm

-Another similar study based on use of think tanks to get information for reporting.

Excerpt: "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."

http://post.economics.harvard.edu/fa.../bw04_0614.pdf

-The striking differences in coverage of the economy.

Excerpt (Wikipedia):


"John Lott and Kevin Hassett of the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute studied the coverage of economic news by looking at a panel of 389 U.S. newspapers from 1991 to 2004, and at a subsample of the two ten newspapers and the Associated Press from 1985 to 2004 [5]. For each release of official data about a set of economic indicators, the authors analyze how newspapers decide to report on them, as reflected by the tone of the related headlines. The idea is to check whether newspapers display partisan bias, by giving more positive or negative coverage to the same economic figure, as a function of the political affiliation of the incumbent President. Controlling for the economic data being released, the authors find that there are between 9.6 and 14.7 percent fewer positive stories when the incumbent President is a Republican."


-Blatant editorial bias.

Excerpt (Wikipedia):


"Riccardo Puglisi of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology looks at the editorial choices of the New York Times from 1946 to 1997 [6]. He finds that the Times displays Democratic partisanship, with some watchdog aspects. This is the case, because during presidential campaigns the Times systematically gives more coverage to Democratic topics of civil rights, health care, labor and social welfare, but only when the incumbent president is a Republican. These topics are classified as Democratic ones, because Gallup polls show that on average U.S. citizens think that Democratic candidates would be better at handling problems related to them. According to Puglisi, in the post-1960 period the Times displays a more symmetric type of watchdog behaviour, just because during presidential campaigns it also gives more coverage to the typically Republican issue of Defense when the incumbent President is a Democrat, and less so when the incumbent is a Republican."

Yeah, you're right, the media's right wing. :roll:

 

[aquapub]

What is liberal about these four statements? I see them as non-trusting, and thinking the President is mistaken in his leadership. I don't see what any of them link to having a liberal political stance? Just because you believe someone to be wrong does not mean you are politically a liberal.

They are all overtly anti-Bush. Let's cut the crap here. 100% anti-Bush guests, statements, callers....NOOOO....NPR isn't biased at all. :roll: