Numbers On Media Bias (1 Viewer)

[aquapub]

The Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology published a study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics in November, 2005 that drew the following conclusions.

The most neutral number attainable is just under 50. The higher the number, the more liberal, the lower, the more conservative...

Period of Estimated Standard

Media outlet observation ADA score
ABC Good Morning America 6/27/97- 6/26/03 56.1
ABC World News Tonight 1/1/94- 6/26/03 61.0
CBS Early Show 11/1/99- 6/26/03 66.6
CBS Evening News 1/1/90- 6/26/03 73.7
CNN NewsNight with Aaron Brown 11/9/01- 2/5/04 56.0
Drudge Report 3/26/02- 7/1/04 60.4
Fox News' Special Rep. w/Brit Hume 6/1/98- 6/26/03 39.7
Los Angeles Times 6/28/02-12/29/02 70.0
NBC Nightly News 1/1/97- 6/26/03 61.6
NBC Today Show 6/27/97- 6/26/03 64.0
New York Times 7/1/01- 5/1/02 73.7
Newshour with Jim Lehrer 11/29/99- 6/26/03 55.8
Newsweek 6/27/95- 6/26/03 66.3
NPR Morning Edition 1/1/92- 6/26/03 66.3
Time Magazine 8/6/01- 6/26/03 65.4
U.S. News and World Report 6/27/95- 6/26/03 65.8
USA Today 1/1/02- 9/1/02 63.4
Wall Street Journal 1/1/02- 5/1/02 85.1
Washington Post 1/1/02- 5/1/02 66.6
Washington Times 1/1/02- 5/1/02 35.4

Average 62.6




To demonstrate the reliability of their criteria, the conductors of the study also showed the results for known politicians...

Legislator Average score
Maxine Waters (D-CA) 99.6
Edward Kennedy (D-MA) 88.8
John Kerry (D-MA) 87.6
Average Democrat 84.3
Tom Daschle (D-SD) 80.9
Joe Lieberman (D-CT) 74.2
Constance Morella (R-MD) 68.2
Ernest Hollings (D-SC) 63.7
John Breaux (D-LA) 59.5
Christopher Shays (R-CT) 54.6
Arlen Specter (R-PA) 51.3
James Leach (R-IA) 50.3
Howell Heflin (D-AL) 49.7
Tom Campbell (R-CA) 48.6
Sam Nunn (D-GA) 48.0
Dave McCurdy (D-OK) 46.9
Olympia Snowe (R-ME) 43.0
Susan Collins (R-ME) 39.3
Charlie Stenholm (D-TX) 36.1
Rick Lazio (R-NY) 35.8
Tom Ridge (R-PA) 26.7
Nathan Deal (D-GA) 21.5
Joe Scarborough (R-FL) 17.7
Average Republican 16.1
John McCain (R-AZ) 12.7
Bill Frist (R-TN) 10.3
Tom DeLay (R-TX) 4.7


[mod note]
http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf

Link added by Mod. Please remember to link your sources.
Gunny.
[mod end]

 

[PeteEU]

Is there a link to this study or are they using the same flawed one that was made by those to guys from UCLA? It really looks like that study again and its soo full of flaws and wishfull thinking thats its almost funny. Add to that, that the 2 men behind the so called study are conservatives all the way.. hence they got what they wanted, to paint everyone but dear old Fox as liberal biased.

Wall Street Journal 1/1/02- 5/1/02 85.1

This alone seriously puts doubt in the findings in my view. According to this, the bastion of business is the Pravda of the USA... bullshit.

And if it is that flawed study, then there are plenty of other eye poping "odd things" that they try to explain away.

 

[talloulou]

Well I often compare Fox and MSNBC. I enjoy both but there are distinct differences. Anotherwards MSNBC will rarely talk of "illegal aliens" and instead discuss the whole situation in terms of immigrant rights whereas fox will stress the whole illegal alien phrase every chance they get. Cnn is too boring so I don't watch it.

 

[Captain America]

Now, if we could just get rid or the top 5 and the bottom 5 (the extremists) we could get representation more inline with the will of the people.



Maxine Waters (D-CA) 99.6
Edward Kennedy (D-MA) 88.8
John Kerry (D-MA) 87.6
Tom Daschle (D-SD) 80.9
Joe Lieberman (D-CT) 74.2

Nathan Deal (D-GA) 21.5
Joe Scarborough (R-FL) 17.7
John McCain (R-AZ) 12.7
Bill Frist (R-TN) 10.3
Tom DeLay (R-TX) 4.7

Oh yeah, this poll is as old a dino poop. Scarborough is now a talking head.

 

[talloulou]

Now, if we could just get rid or the top 5 and the bottom 5 (the extremists) we could get representation more inline with the will of the people.



Maxine Waters (D-CA) 99.6
Edward Kennedy (D-MA) 88.8
John Kerry (D-MA) 87.6
Tom Daschle (D-SD) 80.9
Joe Lieberman (D-CT) 74.2

Nathan Deal (D-GA) 21.5
Joe Scarborough (R-FL) 17.7
John McCain (R-AZ) 12.7
Bill Frist (R-TN) 10.3
Tom DeLay (R-TX) 4.7

No way I like Joe Scarborough! :rofl And Maxine Waters is too entertaining.

"I have to march because my mother could not have an abortion." -Maxine Waters

:2rofll:

 

[Captain America]

No way I like Joe Scarborough! :rofl And Maxine Waters is too entertaining.

"I have to march because my mother could not have an abortion." -Maxine Waters

:2rofll:

I just about freaked out a couple of weeks back when Scarborough was criticizing Bush Corp. I never thought I'd see the day. Seems like he might have lost his taste for Kool-Aid.

 

[mpg]

Is there a link to this study or are they using the same flawed one that was made by those to guys from UCLA? It really looks like that study again and its soo full of flaws and wishfull thinking thats its almost funny. Add to that, that the 2 men behind the so called study are conservatives all the way.. hence they got what they wanted, to paint everyone but dear old Fox as liberal biased.



This alone seriously puts doubt in the findings in my view. According to this, the bastion of business is the Pravda of the USA... bullshit.

And if it is that flawed study, then there are plenty of other eye poping "odd things" that they try to explain away.

Who are these two conservatives that you're referring to?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I looked all over the net, including the sites for the organizations he claims conducted the study, and found no evidence at all that the study ever occurred.

I then looked at the findings of the study. They are exactly the same as the bullshit UCLA "study" from 2 years ago. You know, that bullshit "study" that claimed the Bookings Institute was a liberal thinktank. :roll:

There are people out there who think that mainstream science is liberal. They think that known history is a liberal lie. To put it quite bluntly, they are mentally ill. They are afflicted with some kind of a personality disorder that precludes them from engaging in rational and objective thought. Just because a right winger claims one thing, and the media claims another does not mean that the media is liberal. It could very well mean that the right winger is a liar and the media is only doing factual reporting.

You have to figure, the same people who claim that the media is liberal are the same people who believe that Evolution is a lie. These guys are not rational and reasoned people.

 

[mpg]

You have to figure, the same people who claim that the media is liberal are the same people who believe that Evolution is a lie. These guys are not rational and reasoned people.

Saying the media isn't liberal is like saying Ronald Reagan wasn't conservative. Watch any news broadcast. They can't go 10 seconds without breaking down the barrier between news and commentary. What kind of opinions do they mix with the facts? They're usually non-political, but when they are political, they're pro-abortion rights, anti-gun rights, pro-affirmative action, anti-military, pro-Democrats, anti-Republicans, pro-expanding government, etc. The media even admits it from time to time. The evidence is overwhelming. People who deny it are the same people who claim that the earth is flat. Journalism simply isn't a career that's chosen by a lot of conservatives. Different kinds of people choose different careers. How many liberals would you expect to find at the CIA?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Saying the media isn't liberal is like saying Ronald Reagan wasn't conservative. Watch any news broadcast. They can't go 10 seconds without breaking down the barrier between news and commentary. What kind of opinions do they mix with the facts? They're usually non-political, but when they are political, they're pro-abortion rights, anti-gun rights, pro-affirmative action, anti-military, pro-Democrats, anti-Republicans, pro-expanding government, etc. The media even admits it from time to time. The evidence is overwhelming. People who deny it are the same people who claim that the earth is flat. Journalism simply isn't a career that's chosen by a lot of conservatives. Different kinds of people choose different careers. How many liberals would you expect to find at the CIA?

There is no doubt that the media is somewhat socially liberal. For example, the media having been around gays, is not quite as homophobic as Joe Redneck is. Their bias though, in that area would be one toward tolerance. I will say this, I do believe that the media does have a bias toward gun control.

Just the same, in terms of economics, science, and politics, they are not liberal at all. For example, some right wingers would consider the media liberal because it does not give the same weight to the notions of Intelligent Design advocates, as it does to supporters of Evolution. The reason for this is not because of a liberal bias in the media, its because litterally all of life science is based in evolution and few if any actual scientists take intelligent design seriously at all. Therefore it would be missleading to protray a scientific dispute where one does not exist.

Another example would be Supply Side Economics, the media gives more time to traditional economists because they out number Supply Side Economists 50 to 1. Therefore, it would be misleading to portray Supply Side notions as mainstream economics, when the majority of economists do not fully accept them (our current and previous Fed Chairmans did not). If Supply Sidders believe there is a bias against them in the media, I suppose they could take comfort or not in that there is also a bias against communist economists too. (if your wrong, then its not a bias)

Another example would be Global Warming. The media gives little weight to Global Warming deniers because every single scientific society in the western world with expertise in climate supports the theory of Global Warming. Therefore, it would be missleading to portray a scientific dispute where one does not exist.

The Brookings Institute is a non-partisan thinktank. The Heritage Institute is a very conservative thinktank. Therefore, its only logical that the Brookings Institute gets quoted more often than the Heritage Institute.

Its not that the media is liberal like the right wingers claim, or conservative like the liberals claim. Its that those on the far right and far left are just flat wrong most of the time.

Liberal bias would be easy to prove. All one would have to do is count the number of positive articles on Bush in the last elections and the number of positive articles on Kerry, then count the number of negative articles for the two candidates. Then, count the number of times conservatives are interviewed and the number of times that liberals are interviewed. Then count the number of times that conservative think tanks like the Heritage Institute are cited, and then count the number of times liberal think tanks like the Center for American Progress and then compare it to how many times non-partisan think tanks like the Brookings Institute is cited.

If conservatives really want to prove a bias, all they have to do is to get an independent organization to conduct such a study. Funny thing is, they have never done that, probably because they would rather work the refs.

 

[aquapub]

Is there a link to this study or are they using the same flawed one that was made by those to guys from UCLA? It really looks like that study again and its soo full of flaws and wishfull thinking thats its almost funny. Add to that, that the 2 men behind the so called study are conservatives all the way.. hence they got what they wanted, to paint everyone but dear old Fox as liberal biased.



This alone seriously puts doubt in the findings in my view. According to this, the bastion of business is the Pravda of the USA... bullshit.

And if it is that flawed study, then there are plenty of other eye poping "odd things" that they try to explain away.

This was a scholarly, peer-reviewed study in a respected journal. If you look it up (Lexis Nexis is where I found it), it is clear that their methodology is tested and sound.

 

[mpg]

SD

It's possible for someone to use wrong reasons to accuse the media of being liberal. Noone is disputing that. That doesn't change the fact that there are plenty of GOOD reasons for saying that the media is liberal.

As far as documenting it is concerned, it's been done. I'm sorry I don't have a link. It's not something that I saw on the net. I don't blame you if you don't believe me, but let me summarize it for you. First of all, I've been unable to find an unbiased media watchdog group. Most of them are conservative. The liberal groups focus on who owns the various media outlets. The assumption is that if they're owned by "big business", they must be conservative. The only times they ever discuss the actual content of a broadcast, they cite examples of the parent corporation controlling the content to serve their own specific financial interests. That's a lot diferent from having a conservative slant toward political issues such as abortion or affirmative action. Ofcourse they do manage to show a conservative slant in the content of FNC, and other news outlets which are clearly conservative.

OTOH, conservative groups do plenty of the documentation that you refer to. They quote many comments from mainstream media that anyone would call liberal or pro-Democrat. They also count things. They don't do it exactly the same way that you suggested though. If there were more anti-Bush stories than anti-Kerry stories, that wouldn't necessarily prove a bias. Maybe they found more dirt on Bush than they found on Kerry. One of the things that they counted was how often the media uses terms such as "hard line conservative", "left wing", or "right wing". They use computers to count these things. It turns out, that if they do a story about a right wing guy like Alan Keyes, they rarely fail to use a term like "right wing" in the story. OTOH, if they do a story about a left wing guy like Ted Kennedy, they almost never describe him as being extreme, left wing, or out of the main stream.

Then there are my own personal observations. I could list a million examples. Let's start with the 60 Minutes scandal during the 2004 election. If you want me to list additional examples, I would have to type all night. I also have friends who consider themselves liberals, even by Connecticut standards, and they say that the media is ridiculously liberal.

Then there are the polls. A poll of journalism students found that 95% of them consider themselves to be liberals. A Gallup poll done in 1992 found that 89% of the DC press corp voted for Clinton. Now consider the fact that part of the DC press corp is working for conservative media outlets such as the NY Post, the Washington Times, and the National Review. That leaves virtually 100% Clinton supporters working at ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN.

I have an idea. You and I can both watch the same broadcast. Pick any of the three major networks, and we'll watch their evening news. They're all on at 6:30 here on the East Coast. We'll both record it, so that we can watch it slowly. You can write any conservative or pro-Republican opinions that they throw in there, and I'll write down any liberal or pro-Democrat opinions that I can find. Then we'll come back to this thread. Is it a deal? You pick the network. One thing that you should notice right away, is that they constantly mix fact and opinion. That's a nono. Opinions and analysis should only be during clearly labeled commentary. They constantly analyze, whether the story is political or not. If the story IS political, the analysis is almost guaranteed to be neutral or left leaning.

Conservatives have no problem admitting that FNC, the National Review, and the Washington Times are conservative media outlets. Why can't liberals admit that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Time, Newsweek, USA Today, and the NY Times are liberal media outlets?

 

[ALiberalModerate]

This was a scholarly, peer-reviewed study in a respected journal. If you look it up (Lexis Nexis is where I found it), it is clear that their methodology is tested and sound.

Lets see a link. For some reason, when you visit the websites of the organizations who conducted the study, no mention can be found of it.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

SD
OTOH, conservative groups do plenty of the documentation that you refer to. They quote many comments from mainstream media that anyone would call liberal or pro-Democrat.

So what, I watch CNN sometimes in the morning and hear something and think that is nothing but a Republican talking point. Anecdotal evidence proves nothing.

They also count things. They don't do it exactly the same way that you suggested though. If there were more anti-Bush stories than anti-Kerry stories, that wouldn't necessarily prove a bias. Maybe they found more dirt on Bush than they found on Kerry. One of the things that they counted was how often the media uses terms such as "hard line conservative", "left wing", or "right wing". They use computers to count these things. It turns out, that if they do a story about a right wing guy like Alan Keyes, they rarely fail to use a term like "right wing" in the story. OTOH, if they do a story about a left wing guy like Ted Kennedy, they almost never describe him as being extreme, left wing, or out of the main stream.

I don’t like Ted Kennedy, but it would hard to call a guy extreme when he gets reelected by solid majorities. Obviously, he represents the mainstream of his constituency. Alan Keyes gets killed at the polls. Moreover, Ted Kennedy is often referred to as a liberal senator, and who is so stupid they don’t know he is anyway.

Then there are my own personal observations. I could list a million examples. Let's start with the 60 Minutes scandal during the 2004 election.

Anyone remember "Troopergate" and all the media hype around what ended up being total BS. Or how about all the media hype about Clinton supposedly giving plots at the National Cemetery to contributors. Which was another BS story that was all over the news. If you want me to list additional examples, I would have to type all night. Once again, anecdotal evidence proves nothing.

Then there are the polls. A poll of journalism students found that 95% of them consider themselves to be liberals.

That’s true of 95% of college students in general. Then they go out and start working and paying taxes and move closer to the center.

A Gallup poll done in 1992 found that 89% of the DC press corp voted for Clinton.

Actually, that was not a poll. It is simply a claim of Ken Walsh, a conservative columnist for U.S. News and World Report. However, it is worth point out that if one looks back at the 1996 exit polls (1992 ones are not online), a solid majority of individuals holding postgraduate degrees voted for Clinton. In almost every presidential election, Democrats carry the votes of the intellectuals and those holding postgraduate degrees. Like the old saying goes, vote Republican, it’s easier than thinking. Some of the smartest people I have ever known have been Libertarians and Liberals, some of the dumbest and biggest bone heads have been conservative Republicans. (I am being tongue in cheek).

I have an idea. You and I can both watch the same broadcast. Pick any of the three major networks, and we'll watch their evening news. They're all on at 6:30 here on the East Coast. We'll both record it, so that we can watch it slowly. You can write any conservative or pro-Republican opinions that they throw in there, and I'll write down any liberal or pro-Democrat opinions that I can find. Then we'll come back to this thread. Is it a deal? You pick the network.

Would not work. People see what they want to see. What one man calls liberal another calls mainstream.

One thing that you should notice right away, is that they constantly mix fact and opinion. That's a nono. Opinions and analysis should only be during clearly labeled commentary. They constantly analyze, whether the story is political or not. If the story IS political, the analysis is almost guaranteed to be neutral or left leaning.

Unless you are listening to the BBC or NPR, everything gets opinion thrown in. Just the same, half the time I hear it, its Republican talking points. Once again, anecdotal evidence means nothing.

Conservatives have no problem admitting that FNC, the National Review, and the Washington Times are conservative media outlets. Why can't liberals admit that ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, Time, Newsweek, USA Today, and the NY Times are liberal media outlets?

The actual reporting on Fox News is really not conservative at all. Its all the talking heads on Fox News that are ultra-conservative. The National Review and Washington Times are comparable to The New Republic or in the case of Washington Times, The Nation.

CNN, Time, Newsweek, USA Today, and the NY Times try to be balanced, the National Review and the Washington Times don't.

Oh, and if you don't think that liberals document what they see as right wing bias in the media, visit www.mediamatters.org.

Finally, Bias in Media is the worst part of the whole forums. Every time a Republican does something stupid or dishonest, all the hard-core Republicans rant on here that it’s all just liberal bias. Every time a Democrat does something stupid all the hard-core Democrats rant on here that it’s all just corporate media. Blaming your parties failures on the media is just a way to get out of ever admitting that ones side is wrong about anything.

 

[mpg]

"So what, I watch CNN sometimes in the morning and hear something and think that is nothing but a Republican talking point. Anecdotal evidence proves nothing."

I also hear a conservative slant in stories done my networks that I consider liberal, but they're rare in comparison to the liberal slant.
____________________________________

"I don’t like Ted Kennedy, but it would hard to call a guy extreme when he gets reelected by solid majorities. Obviously, he represents the mainstream of his constituency. Alan Keyes gets killed at the polls. Moreover, Ted Kennedy is often referred to as a liberal senator, and who is so stupid they don’t know he is anyway."

I just picked those two randomly. Their constituencies are irrelevant in a discussion about national politics. Tha data shows that conservatives are depicted as extremists while liberals aren't.
____________________________________

"Anyone remember "Troopergate" and all the media hype around what ended up being total BS. Or how about all the media hype about Clinton supposedly giving plots at the National Cemetery to contributors. Which was another BS story that was all over the news. If you want me to list additional examples, I would have to type all night. Once again, anecdotal evidence proves nothing."

Since when are those stories bs?
____________________________________

"That’s true of 95% of college students in general. Then they go out and start working and paying taxes and move closer to the center."

95% of college students consider themselves liberal? Are you serious?
____________________________________

"Actually, that was not a poll. It is simply a claim of Ken Walsh, a conservative columnist for U.S. News and World Report. However, it is worth point out that if one looks back at the 1996 exit polls (1992 ones are not online), a solid majority of individuals holding postgraduate degrees voted for Clinton. In almost every presidential election, Democrats carry the votes of the intellectuals and those holding postgraduate degrees. Like the old saying goes, vote Republican, it’s easier than thinking. Some of the smartest people I have ever known have been Libertarians and Liberals, some of the dumbest and biggest bone heads have been conservative Republicans. (I am being tongue in cheek)."

I'll try to do more research on that poll. The rest of that paragraph is off topic.
____________________________________

"Would not work. People see what they want to see. What one man calls liberal another calls mainstream."

You don't have to do it if you don't want to, but I'm going to videotape the ABC news broadcast tonight. I can almost guarantee that I'll find something that even you would call liberal.
____________________________________

"Unless you are listening to the BBC or NPR, everything gets opinion thrown in. Just the same, half the time I hear it, its Republican talking points. Once again, anecdotal evidence means nothing."

BBC and NPR do it also. NPR is worse than most. Anecdotes can be counted, but you don't want to.
____________________________________

"The actual reporting on Fox News is really not conservative at all. Its all the talking heads on Fox News that are ultra-conservative. The National Review and Washington Times are comparable to The New Republic or in the case of Washington Times, The Nation."

The Nation is more comparable to the National Review. I get the WTNWE. It's decidedly more conservative than the daily WT. The daily WT is no more slanted than the NYT or the WP.
____________________________________

"CNN, Time, Newsweek, USA Today, and the NY Times try to be balanced, the National Review and the Washington Times don't."

They're all equally slanted, except for the National Review. They're openly conservative.
____________________________________

"Oh, and if you don't think that liberals document what they see as right wing bias in the media, visit www.mediamatters.org

I'll check that out and get back to you.
____________________________________

Do you deny that different kinds of people go into different occupations? I'll ask you again. How many liberals would you expect to find at the CIA? How bout the Marines? How bout journalism?

Are you old enough to remember when the Republicans took over Congress in 1994? Do you deny that the mainstream media covered it as if it were a disaster like a hurricane or an earthquake? When Anita Hill (a Democrat) accused a Supreme Court nominee (nominated by a Republican) of making off color jokes, the media went into a feeding frenzy, even though the jokes were mild enough to be repeated on TV. When a fellow Democrat accused the POTUS of rape, it got very little coverage. How do you explain that?

 

[mpg]

I just followed your link. They documented bias for sure, but isn't it pointless to point out bias in opinion pieces? The first four examples were just that. Opinion pieces are supposed to be opinionated. Your link supports my point.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

I just followed your link. They documented bias for sure, but isn't it pointless to point out bias in opinion pieces? The first four examples were just that. Opinion pieces are supposed to be opinionated. Your link supports my point.

No, they point out lies in opinion pieces. They also point out plenty of bias in the news media. The organization was founded by ex-conservative author, David Brock.

 

[mpg]

www.mediamatters.org

Here are the first four examples on that page:
1.)"right-wing radio host Glenn Beck"
2.)"an April 14 entry on the Huffington Post weblog"
3.)"Attacks on Democrats and "liberals" a common thread among Time columnists"
4.)"O'Reilly"

radio host? weblog? columnists? O'Reilly? Are these guys serious? They're hilarious whether they're trying to be or not. As I pointed out in one of my previous posts, there is supposed to be a wall between reporting, and analysis/commentary. If guys like O'Reilly are lying, someone should be watching them and reporting it, but these guys are SUPPOSED TO be biased. That's their job. They're not supposed to lie, and it's correct to catch them, but when most people talk about media bias, they're referring to the way that hard news is being reported. None of those four examples comes close to hard news.

 

[ALiberalModerate]

Do you deny that different kinds of people go into different occupations? I'll ask you again. How many liberals would you expect to find at the CIA? How bout the Marines? How bout journalism?

I know of several liberals who have been in the Marines. I am sure that the CIA has plenty of liberals and conservatives as well. Now, I am sure that some fields like say, union busters or mining lobbyists, tend to attract conservatives (I am kidding). I will say, that journalists are typically idealists, and idealists are typically liberal. Then again, conservatives definitely have a strong role in the opinionated media. The reason that journalism tends to attract liberals is that liberals tend to be people who are more pragmatic in their thinking and more open minded (conservatives call this flip flopping and wishy washy). Conservatives, especially social conservatives, tend to be less tolerant, less open minded, and more ideological. That is not to say that there are not plenty of close minded and intolerant liberals out there, but on balance, liberals do tend to be more open minded and objective than conservatives are. That is a quality that is a necessity in journalism. There is a significant number of conservatives who are as unreasoned and un-objective as Aquapub and Travius are. There are not as many liberals who are so un-objective. That is why conservatives use terms like principled to describe fellow conservatives, and wishy washy to describe liberals. Principled often is simply another way of saying close-minded though.

On a lot of issues I am probably slightly left of center, but I know I could easily argue and see the merits in both sides of most issues. I know a lot of conservatives on here could not. In fact, in some of the debates on here, after reading some of the conservative arguments, I think I could make a better conservative argument than they are making.

Are you old enough to remember when the Republicans took over Congress in 1994? Do you deny that the mainstream media covered it as if it were a disaster like a hurricane or an earthquake? When Anita Hill (a Democrat) accused a Supreme Court nominee (nominated by a Republican) of making off color jokes, the media went into a feeding frenzy, even though the jokes were mild enough to be repeated on TV. When a fellow Democrat accused the POTUS of rape, it got very little coverage. How do you explain that?

Anecdotal evidence proves nothing. I remember the 24/7 coverage of the Lewinsky scandal as well. I remember all the negative coverage of Gore during the 2000 campaign compared to Bush. I remember all the trashing of Dean in the media as well. Once again, people only see what they want to see and anecdotal evidence means nothing.

 

[mpg]

Anecdotal evidence proves nothing. I remember the 24/7 coverage of the Lewinsky scandal as well. I remember all the negative coverage of Gore during the 2000 campaign compared to Bush. I remember all the trashing of Dean in the media as well. Once again, people only see what they want to see and anecdotal evidence means nothing.

Most of your post was off topic and then you dodged my question about Hill/Broadrick. Care to try again?

 

[cnredd]

I just got the new numbers on media bias!...

Conservative - FoxNews

Liberal - Every channel not named "FoxNews"

:2wave:

 

[disneydude]

I can't believe that you right-wingers try to argue this "Liberal media" fallacy with a straight face. I guess you adhere to the current administration philosophy that any lie will be believed by some if you tell if over and over again.
If anything the major news organizations lean to the right.

If you want proof of this look at the tough questioning that Rumsfield faced recently. Have you ever seen those type of questions asked anyone in this administration by the mainstream "Liberal media"? Of course not.

Why?....it isn't a Republican or Democrat issue, whoever is in the whitehouse....doesn't matter. Its all about power and access to the whitehouse. If you ask those types of hard questions you become blacklisted and lose access privileges.

So next time you want to try to convince someone that there is a mainstream "liberal bias"...maybe you can start by showing some of the really tough questions that anyone in the "liberal" media have posed to anyone in this whitehouse. And while your at it, give us some examples of when they have asked a slightly tough question and didn't let the person weasel out of the question without answer it.

That should tell you about your "liberal media" myth.

 

[cnredd]

I can't believe that you right-wingers try to argue this "Liberal media" fallacy with a straight face. I guess you adhere to the current administration philosophy that any lie will be believed by some if you tell if over and over again.
If anything the major news organizations lean to the right.

say it a little louder...

Dan Rather didn't hear that...

If you want proof of this look at the tough questioning that Rumsfield faced recently. Have you ever seen those type of questions asked anyone in this administration by the mainstream "Liberal media"? Of course not.

Yes...when a soldier in the army asked a question that was presented to him by a reporter...Here's the story...

Reporter planted GI's question for Rumsfeld

The question a U.S. soldier asked Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld Wednesday about the lack of armor on some combat vehicles in Iraq was planted by a newspaper reporter embedded with the soldier's unit, the reporter told colleagues in an e-mail.

Why?....it isn't a Republican or Democrat issue, whoever is in the whitehouse....doesn't matter. Its all about power and access to the whitehouse. If you ask those types of hard questions you become blacklisted and lose access privileges.

Hard questions deserve hard answers...But here's what really happens...

I ask you a question..."Do you think we should've gone to war in Iraq?"...disneydude answers, "No"...

Then I go create my article...Here's my first paragraph...

After hundreds of thousands of children died because of sanctions, and after hundreds of thousands of people died with the acknowledgement of Saddam, president disneydude is STIL unfer the stupid and false notion that there was no reason to help these helpless citizens.

Now let me ask you...Did you say any of that?...Was what I've said fair to your answer?...Of course not...

So why on earth would you ever call on me again?...I've already proved that I won't put your answer in proper context and make you appear unfeeling...

There's no reason to call upon me gain...I'm not doing my true job as a journalist...I've become a partisan pundit...

So next time you want to try to convince someone that there is a mainstream "liberal bias"...maybe you can start by showing some of the really tough questions that anyone in the "liberal" media have posed to anyone in this whitehouse. And while your at it, give us some examples of when they have asked a slightly tough question and didn't let the person weasel out of the question without answer it.

OK then...

HELEN THOMAS: I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your Cabinet -- your Cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I think your premise, in all due respect to your question and to you as a lifelong journalist, is that, you know, I didn't want war. To assume I wanted war is just flat wrong, Helen, in all due respect --

HELEN THOMAS: Everything --

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Hold on for a second, please.

HELEN THOMAS: -- everything I've heard --

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Excuse me, excuse me. No president wants war. Everything you may have heard is that, but it's just simply not true. My attitude about the defense of this country changed on September the 11th. We -- when we got attacked, I vowed then and there to use every asset at my disposal to protect the American people. Our foreign policy changed on that day, Helen. You know, we used to think we were secure because of oceans and previous diplomacy, but we realized on September the 11th, 2001, that killers could destroy innocent life. And I'm never going to forget it. And I'm never going to forget the vow I made to the American people that we will do everything in our power to protect our people.

Part of that meant to make sure that we didn't allow people to provide safe haven to an enemy. And that's why I went into Iraq -- hold on for a second --

HELEN THOMAS: They didn't do anything to you or to our country.

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Look -- excuse me for a second, please. Excuse me for a second. They did. The Taliban provided safe haven for al-Qaeda. That's where al-Qaeda trained --

HELEN THOMAS: I'm talking about Iraq --

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: Helen, excuse me. That's where -- Afghanistan provided safe haven for al-Qaeda. That's where they trained. That's where they plotted. That's where they planned the attacks that killed thousands of innocent Americans.

I also saw a threat in Iraq. I was hoping to solve this problem diplomatically. That's why I went to the Security Council; that's why it was important to pass 1441, which was unanimously passed. And the world said, ‘Disarm, disclose, or face serious consequences’ --

HELEN THOMAS: -- go to war --

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: -- and therefore, we worked with the world, we worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world. And when he chose to deny inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him. And we did, and the world is safer for it.

That should tell you about your "liberal media" myth.

Yes it does...

 

[disneydude]

Thank you Thank you Thank you.

I knew that someone would take the Helen Thomas Bait and thats exactly what I was hoping for.

The ONE tough question ever asked by a mainstream media person.

After how many years of reporters *****footing around, one person asks a tough question and look at the furor that question created.

We need a media that not only asks these tough questions but demands answers.

See.....subtely you proved my point and it didn't require hitting you over the head. The question we all should be asking is why we don't demand more from our media....why don't we demand answers....the truth........oh...but then they really would be accused of being biased.

 

[disneydude]

Oh....and btw....I suppose that you will claim that CNN is being "liberally biased" when they show an old clip of Rumsfield saying the exact words that we claimed that he never said.

See...anything negaive....even pointing out the truth....is viewed by right-wingers as "liberal bias". Even when it involves holding someone accountable and calling them on their lies and deceit.