PeteEU said:
Its funny how right wingers cite the "liberal media" without giving a shred of proof of said bias...
Funny how right-wingers can post mountains of evidence of liberal media bias all over this site and always get the same response....1) liberals avoid the topic, 2) wait a while, and then 3) accuse right-wingers of never posting any evidence.
Here's a few examples of the evidence you're being to childish to simply ask for (collected from a number of sources, and it 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/v118y2004i1_2p53-59.html#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/groseclose/Media.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/faculty/barro/bw/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."
Oh...wait, you're right. FOX News regularly shows something MORE than the liberal side of the story...FOX is the outrage here.:roll:
Politics unedited.
