There is No Substantial Liberal Media Bias! (1 Viewer)

[Mr. D]

There is no Substantial Liberal News Bias!

You must have some actual news before it can be biased! REAL NEWS DOESN'T EXIST IN THE CORPORATE MEDIA, SO HOW BIASED CAN IT BE! What far righter ideologs call liberal media bias is simply the media talking about any negative information related to their views rather than the Fox News campaigning for conservative positions and Bush! Corporate censored TV barely can't even be called news anymore. How can it be biased when it only reports on crime, entertainment, sports and poodles getting married. Some newspapers are still reporting some news, but the masses don't read! On TV you can't be biased when you aren't even really covering the real news! If you don't watch CSPAN and foreign news programs you don't hear anything about what is happening in the world of in this country! Any real news is pushed off to the side for crime, Brittany Spears, Broke Back Mountain, sports and idiotic silliness! It's the new censorship!

I wish there was enough news reported on TV to even be biased any direction! Ask yourself who owns the major sources of news? Liberals like G.E. or Rupert Murdoch? Ever seen a report on TV about where we are building permanent bases in the Middle East to guard the natural gas pie lines and oil production? You won't either! Kerry made the charge of 14 permanent bases in the first debate with Bush. It was never denied by Bush, and never really reported on. Wonder why? Who were the leaders of the energy industry that met secretly with Cheney to form policy? Why is that kept a secret and not looked into? Who do you know who would accidentally shoot a friend in the face and not go to the hospital with him? What would keep you from doing that obviously human thing? Blood tests maybe? I don't know, but where are all the liberal reporters? No one asked the obvious question. What a joke! Now if Clinton had shot him, a grand jury and special prosecutor would be on it with millions in a budget for the inquisition! Of course that wouldn't be news reporting, it would be the Carl Rove/Monica machine back at work!

 

[Billo_Really]

A couple other points:

• Why wasn't more said about DSM? Everyone involved has not denied its authenticity. It was major news around the world. But barely a mention here.
• Why wasn't more said about the anti-war protests and the march on Washington last year. It went on all around the world. It was a major event. But hardley any coverage from the media. In fact, they reported both anti-war and pro-war rally's in Washington in the same vane. As if they were equal! One had 400,000 people, the other had 400 people. Yeah, that's equal.
• Why has nothing been said about the World Tribunal on Iraq? And their findings that we have violated the Nuremburg principles and committed Crimes Against Humanity.

 

[Stu Ghatze]

There is no Substantial Liberal News Bias!

You must have some actual news before it can be biased! REAL NEWS DOESN'T EXIST IN THE CORPORATE MEDIA, SO HOW BIASED CAN IT BE! What far righter ideologs call liberal media bias is simply the media talking about any negative information related to their views rather than the Fox News campaigning for conservative positions and Bush! Corporate censored TV barely can't even be called news anymore. How can it be biased when it only reports on crime, entertainment, sports and poodles getting married. Some newspapers are still reporting some news, but the masses don't read! On TV you can't be biased when you aren't even really covering the real news! If you don't watch CSPAN and foreign news programs you don't hear anything about what is happening in the world of in this country! Any real news is pushed off to the side for crime, Brittany Spears, Broke Back Mountain, sports and idiotic silliness! It's the new censorship!

I wish there was enough news reported on TV to even be biased any direction! Ask yourself who owns the major sources of news? Liberals like G.E. or Rupert Murdoch? Ever seen a report on TV about where we are building permanent bases in the Middle East to guard the natural gas pie lines and oil production? You won't either! Kerry made the charge of 14 permanent bases in the first debate with Bush. It was never denied by Bush, and never really reported on. Wonder why? Who were the leaders of the energy industry that met secretly with Cheney to form policy? Why is that kept a secret and not looked into? Who do you know who would accidentally shoot a friend in the face and not go to the hospital with him? What would keep you from doing that obviously human thing? Blood tests maybe? I don't know, but where are all the liberal reporters? No one asked the obvious question. What a joke! Now if Clinton had shot him, a grand jury and special prosecutor would be on it with millions in a budget for the inquisition! Of course that wouldn't be news reporting, it would be the Carl Rove/Monica machine back at work!

Yeah, ..There's no liberal news bias;..& a bear doesn't crap in the woods either! :lol:



As popular as Reagen was it was the liberals, & the MEDIA who tried to sabotage his efforts of winning the cold war, ..& they even put up roadblock after roadblock of opposition along with the liberal democrats when he tried to extricate the communists & marxists out of latin america.

Why even that was outdone by the media & the liberals who kept saying he was gonna get us into a war with the soviets, ..& they even mounted, & helped organize 'staged' protests in Europe convincing the Europeans that they should OPPOSE Reagen's plan to send American missiles there to defend them.

By the time it was all over, ..the Europeans were prefering soviet missiles pointing at them INSTEAD of American missiles sent their to defend them, ..& ALL with the culpable media taking part in it, & licking their chops.

It NEVER changes...its ALWAYS liberal news commentary, & their editorializing, & talking points AGAINST MOST things any GOP president attempts to do, & know "this"...its always the liberal media that CREATE, & START the controversies in the first place, ..& then the democratic party leadership takes it from there weighing, & calculating how far they can go to "POLITISCIZE" it & study "WHATEVER" mileage THEY think they can gey out of it for "NOTHING" but for partisan political gain!

 

[Willoughby]

its always the liberal media that CREATE, & START the controversies in the first place

yeah because it was the liberal media that created iran-contra

 

[XShipRider]

It's pure entertainment. Let's see... blonde, skirt, make a three word
comment from time to time. Yep, that's about it.

Maybe this is why The Weather Channel has gained in popularity.
Though they too are delving into the blonde, skirt, make a three...
oh, never mind.

Mr. D is right with regard to attention span and sound bites. We don't
want to read an entire article in the paper or watch any news item
which takes longer than 1 minute. Unless it's a story about saving
someone's dog after having broken through a frozen pond. Then it
becomes a full half-hour Breaking News special with movie
rights to follow.
I like dogs so don't flame me for that example.

The Academy Awards are a prime example. Look at how much time is
dedicated to just the clothes these plastic people are wearing. What
does that tell you about us as a society? I'm not talking about the
Academy Awards show on television, I'm talking about the so-called
news reports up to and after the show itself. This is news??!! It's
maddening to think there are people dying in the world whilst Academy
Awards fashion is on the tele' every stinking half-hour!

Another example, the Patriot Act. There wasn't one single television
news outlet which went over the Patriot Act point-by-point yet
the news was polling people on their positions. People were taking
positions without having read the Act. It too was maddening.
I had to search the 'net several times before finding a complete
unabridged version.

To answer the original thread, I think there is bias. Why? Because
they don't cover a news story to any degree of thoroughness thereby
creating bias by default. Maybe the thread should read: Does the
media have an agenda? This would be where me and Mr. D part ways.

 

[aquapub]

There is no Substantial Liberal News Bias!

You must have some actual news before it can be biased! REAL NEWS DOESN'T EXIST IN THE CORPORATE MEDIA, SO HOW BIASED CAN IT BE! What far righter ideologs call liberal media bias is simply the media talking about any negative information related to their views rather than the Fox News campaigning for conservative positions and Bush! Corporate censored TV barely can't even be called news anymore. How can it be biased when it only reports on crime, entertainment, sports and poodles getting married. Some newspapers are still reporting some news, but the masses don't read! On TV you can't be biased when you aren't even really covering the real news! If you don't watch CSPAN and foreign news programs you don't hear anything about what is happening in the world of in this country! Any real news is pushed off to the side for crime, Brittany Spears, Broke Back Mountain, sports and idiotic silliness! It's the new censorship!

I wish there was enough news reported on TV to even be biased any direction! Ask yourself who owns the major sources of news? Liberals like G.E. or Rupert Murdoch? Ever seen a report on TV about where we are building permanent bases in the Middle East to guard the natural gas pie lines and oil production? You won't either! Kerry made the charge of 14 permanent bases in the first debate with Bush. It was never denied by Bush, and never really reported on. Wonder why? Who were the leaders of the energy industry that met secretly with Cheney to form policy? Why is that kept a secret and not looked into? Who do you know who would accidentally shoot a friend in the face and not go to the hospital with him? What would keep you from doing that obviously human thing? Blood tests maybe? I don't know, but where are all the liberal reporters? No one asked the obvious question. What a joke! Now if Clinton had shot him, a grand jury and special prosecutor would be on it with millions in a budget for the inquisition! Of course that wouldn't be news reporting, it would be the Carl Rove/Monica machine back at work!

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 (a.k.a., irrational, ignorant assumptions) 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) Pasted from another post of mine:


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?







Yeah, you're right, there is no liberal media bias. Your biased, baseless, MoveOn-regurgitated rhetoric and conspiracy theories don't hold a candle to the overwhelming evidence. You are clearly completely ignorant of this issue in which you are spewing such one sided partisan crap.

 

[beyondtherim55008@yahoo.c]

Media can be Lib bias or Conservative bias, it depends what they're trying to sell. Anyway, how does one get a job reading the tele-prompter in front of a camera? It seems like such a hard job!

 

[desmontheses]

There is no media bias my eye: the news is biased immensely on who is reporting. if you watch fox you will get a more conservative view but if you watch CNN you will get a more liberal view all news is biased like all the news about the president on CNN it is usually slanted to say something against him if you were to watch fox they would slant it to show what a great job he is doing so dont even try to tell me media is not biased!

 

[mpg]

Journalism is one of the dirtiest businesses. Polls show that journalists are among the least respected occupations, along with politicians, lawyers, and used car salesmen. Ofcourse polls don't prove anything, but consider this. It's unethical for reporters and anchors to mix fact and opinion. All opinions are supposed to be separate from reporting and clearly labeled as commentary. If you watch any newscast, you'll see many opinions sprinkled into the reporting. They can't go 10 seconds without injecting an opinion. Anyone who respects journalists more than politicians, and expects them to be a watchdog over the government, is being naive. Does anyone disagree so far?

Next there's the issue of what kind of opinions they're expressing. I think we can all agree, including conservatives, that Fox has a conservative bias, so why is it so hard for liberals to admit that the other networks are liberal? The opinions that I see expressed on the other networks are pro-abortion rights, anti-gun rights, pro-affirmative action, anti-military, pro-expanding government, anti-Republicans, and pro-Democrats. Do any of you remember how they covered the Republican take over of Congress in 1994? It was reported as a disaster like a flood or an earthquake. It was repeatedly described as racist and sexist. The people who voted for the Republicans were described as "angry white males" so many times, that they routinely abbreviated it to "AWMs". Why did they make such a big deal about Kelly Flynn? Does anyone remember that? What about Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill? A Supreme Court nominee was accused of making some off color remarks, but nothing that couldn't be repeated on TV. Did that warrant a feeding frenzy by the media? If so, then why did the media ignore allegations of rape by a sitting US president? Anita Hill was a Democrat while Clarence Thomas was nominated by a Republican president. On the other hand, Juanita Broadrick and Bill Clinton were both Democrats, in fact they were friends before the alleged rape. Why would they avoid such a sensational story that could make them a lot of money? I ask the same question about Vince Foster.

For the other networks to be as biased as I say they are, they would have to be full of liberals. Why is that so hard to believe? Different kinds of people are drawn to different occupations. How many liberals would you expect to find in the CIA, or in the military? Every aspect of the media is dominated by liberals. That includes entertainers, authors, artists, and journalists. According to a Gallup poll, 89% of the Washington press corp voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. 7% voted for Bush. Now consider the fact that part of the Washington press corp was working for conservative media outlets such as The National Review and other clearly conservative publications. Those outlets might account for the entirety of that 7%. That leaves the "mainstream media" with nearly 100% voting for Clinton. I don't see why this should surprise anyone. Does anyone remember that they kept calling Bush a wimp in 1992?

Then there's the issue of media watchdog groups. Why are they almost all conservative organizations? Why are conservatives and Republicans always criticizing the media, while liberals and Democrats defend them?

The abundance of liberal and anti-Bush opinions expressed in the mainstream media is huge. Does anyone consider that unbiased?

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

"If you work here . . . you must be liberal, . . . a Democrat." -- Marie Arana, Washington Post's Book World editor, in an internal memo, as quoted in "Media Bias Confession," News Flash, November 2005, page 5. Address: Media Research Center, 325 South Patrick Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. Phone: 800-672-1423. Website.

"The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness. Too often, we wear liberalism on our sleeve and are intolerant of other lifestyles and opinions. . . . We're not very subtle about it at this paper." -- Marie Arana, Washington Post's Book World editor, in an internal memo, as quoted in "Media Bias Confession," News Flash, November 2005, page 5. Address: Media Research Center, 325 South Patrick Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314. Phone: 800-672-1423. Website.

 

[Deegan]

Journalism is one of the dirtiest businesses. Polls show that journalists are among the least respected occupations, along with politicians, lawyers, and used car salesmen. Ofcourse polls don't prove anything, but consider this. It's unethical for reporters and anchors to mix fact and opinion. All opinions are supposed to be separate from reporting and clearly labeled as commentary. If you watch any newscast, you'll see many opinions sprinkled into the reporting. They can't go 10 seconds without injecting an opinion. Anyone who respects journalists more than politicians, and expects them to be a watchdog over the government, is being naive. Does anyone disagree so far?

Next there's the issue of what kind of opinions they're expressing. I think we can all agree, including conservatives, that Fox has a conservative bias, so why is it so hard for liberals to admit that the other networks are liberal? The opinions that I see expressed on the other networks are pro-abortion rights, anti-gun rights, pro-affirmative action, anti-military, pro-expanding government, anti-Republicans, and pro-Democrats. Do any of you remember how they covered the Republican take over of Congress in 1994? It was reported as a disaster like a flood or an earthquake. It was repeatedly described as racist and sexist. The people who voted for the Republicans were described as "angry white males" so many times, that they routinely abbreviated it to "AWMs". Why did they make such a big deal about Kelly Flynn? Does anyone remember that? What about Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill? A Supreme Court nominee was accused of making some off color remarks, but nothing that couldn't be repeated on TV. Did that warrant a feeding frenzy by the media? If so, then why did the media ignore allegations of rape by a sitting US president? Anita Hill was a Democrat while Clarence Thomas was nominated by a Republican president. On the other hand, Juanita Broadrick and Bill Clinton were both Democrats, in fact they were friends before the alleged rape. Why would they avoid such a sensational story that could make them a lot of money? I ask the same question about Vince Foster.

For the other networks to be as biased as I say they are, they would have to be full of liberals. Why is that so hard to believe? Different kinds of people are drawn to different occupations. How many liberals would you expect to find in the CIA, or in the military? Every aspect of the media is dominated by liberals. That includes entertainers, authors, artists, and journalists. According to a Gallup poll, 89% of the Washington press corp voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. 7% voted for Bush. Now consider the fact that part of the Washington press corp was working for conservative media outlets such as The National Review and other clearly conservative publications. Those outlets might account for the entirety of that 7%. That leaves the "mainstream media" with nearly 100% voting for Clinton. I don't see why this should surprise anyone. Does anyone remember that they kept calling Bush a wimp in 1992?

Then there's the issue of media watchdog groups. Why are they almost all conservative organizations? Why are conservatives and Republicans always criticizing the media, while liberals and Democrats defend them?

The abundance of liberal and anti-Bush opinions expressed in the mainstream media is huge. Does anyone consider that unbiased?

Great post, it's exactly how I feel, and was really alerted to this problem when Clarence Thomas was nominated. I could not believe my eyes, had this black man been nominated by a Democrat, he certainly would have been protected, and racism would certainly have been at issue in their opinion, but because he was playing for the other team, he was thrown to the dogs.

The reason Fox is hated is simple, their ratings are so good, if they were this struggling cable network, let's say MSNBC, we would never hear this angry rhetoric we hear today!

 

[Indy]

There is no media bias my eye: the news is biased immensely on who is reporting. if you watch fox you will get a more conservative view but if you watch CNN you will get a more liberal view all news is biased like all the news about the president on CNN it is usually slanted to say something against him if you were to watch fox they would slant it to show what a great job he is doing so dont even try to tell me media is not biased!

Actually I disagree, and I'll tell you why. I always thought that Fox news was rediculously Biaded to the right and MSNBC was histarically biased to the left. But personally I always thought CNN did a fair job staying neutral, or as neutral as if possible and still report enough news to get ratings. The way I judge if a channel is biased or not (in my strictly scientific and fool proof method that I have pattented throughout the years through rigorous testing and formulation) is that I watch their editorial shows. Basically their "popular" hosts and what they have to say. For Fox news it would probably be O'Reilly or Hanity and Colmes, for MSNBC it would be the guy who is on at the same time (I don't remember his name) who took over Donahues time slot. Cnn had the crossfire show, not quite sure whats on now that replaced it or if its still going. Back on topic, if the host acts hostile to any of the guests on the show, what were they talking about at the time and which party do they belong to? Fox news always bashes the Democrats and MSNBC always bashes the republicans. CNN usually bashes both!

Not that a liberal or conservative bias in the media means diddly squat anyways. Who cares? People are going to watch what they agree with anyways. You don't like MSNBC watch FOX, You don't like FOX watch MSNBC. You don't like either? Read a book.

 

[mpg]

Actually I disagree, and I'll tell you why. I always thought that Fox news was rediculously Biaded to the right and MSNBC was histarically biased to the left. But personally I always thought CNN did a fair job staying neutral, or as neutral as if possible and still report enough news to get ratings. The way I judge if a channel is biased or not (in my strictly scientific and fool proof method that I have pattented throughout the years through rigorous testing and formulation) is that I watch their editorial shows. Basically their "popular" hosts and what they have to say. For Fox news it would probably be O'Reilly or Hanity and Colmes, for MSNBC it would be the guy who is on at the same time (I don't remember his name) who took over Donahues time slot. Cnn had the crossfire show, not quite sure whats on now that replaced it or if its still going. Back on topic, if the host acts hostile to any of the guests on the show, what were they talking about at the time and which party do they belong to? Fox news always bashes the Democrats and MSNBC always bashes the republicans. CNN usually bashes both!

Not that a liberal or conservative bias in the media means diddly squat anyways. Who cares? People are going to watch what they agree with anyways. You don't like MSNBC watch FOX, You don't like FOX watch MSNBC. You don't like either? Read a book.

The type of programs that you're discussing are expected to be biased. Those shows are all about opinion, analysis, and commentary. It's the way that they report the news during news broadcasts that counts.

 

[Indy]

The type of programs that you're discussing are expected to be biased. Those shows are all about opinion, analysis, and commentary. It's the way that they report the news during news broadcasts that counts.

WHAT?!?!?! Are you trying to imply that there is a flaw to my scientific biased measurements?? Thems by fighting words mister. Enguard!

:duel

 

[SPLOGAN]

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

There have been scientific studies done related to media bias. One is described in the link above.

 

[jamesrage]

There is no Substantial Liberal News Bias!

You must have some actual news before it can be biased! REAL NEWS DOESN'T EXIST IN THE CORPORATE MEDIA, SO HOW BIASED CAN IT BE! What far righter ideologs call liberal media bias is simply the media talking about any negative information related to their views rather than the Fox News campaigning for conservative positions and Bush! Corporate censored TV barely can't even be called news anymore. How can it be biased when it only reports on crime, entertainment, sports and poodles getting married. Some newspapers are still reporting some news, but the masses don't read! On TV you can't be biased when you aren't even really covering the real news! If you don't watch CSPAN and foreign news programs you don't hear anything about what is happening in the world of in this country! Any real news is pushed off to the side for crime, Brittany Spears, Broke Back Mountain, sports and idiotic silliness! It's the new censorship!

I wish there was enough news reported on TV to even be biased any direction! Ask yourself who owns the major sources of news? Liberals like G.E. or Rupert Murdoch? Ever seen a report on TV about where we are building permanent bases in the Middle East to guard the natural gas pie lines and oil production? You won't either! Kerry made the charge of 14 permanent bases in the first debate with Bush. It was never denied by Bush, and never really reported on. Wonder why? Who were the leaders of the energy industry that met secretly with Cheney to form policy? Why is that kept a secret and not looked into? Who do you know who would accidentally shoot a friend in the face and not go to the hospital with him? What would keep you from doing that obviously human thing? Blood tests maybe? I don't know, but where are all the liberal reporters? No one asked the obvious question. What a joke! Now if Clinton had shot him, a grand jury and special prosecutor would be on it with millions in a budget for the inquisition! Of course that wouldn't be news reporting, it would be the Carl Rove/Monica machine back at work!

A liberal saying there is no liberal bias in the media is like the tobacco company saying there is nothing harmful in thier products.

 

[hipsterdufus]

I heard an interview yesterday with the creator of Independent World Television aka Real TV www.iwtnews.com

There's some promising info on the site. The bottom line is that the show want's to fill the void of real news that's been replaced on the cable shows with partisan punditry.

It's hoping to launch in '07 as a non corporate sponsored daily news show. It will also feature citizen journalism as well as professional journalism.

 

[hipsterdufus]

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

There have been scientific studies done related to media bias. One is described in the link above.

That study has been debunked time and time again. The methodology of the study wouldn't stand up in a 6th grade Science class.

If you're interested you can read more at F.A.I.R. Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting.

Academics Tim Groseclose and Jeff Milyo got considerable attention for a paper they wrote called “A Measure of Media Bias” (12/04), which deduced a “strong liberal bias” from an analysis of news outlets’ use of “think tanks.” (The groups the study looks at are actually a combination of think tanks and advocacy groups.)

The report used a peculiar Rube Goldberg–like method to calculate media bias from think tank citations: Taking the Americans for Democratic Action ratings of congressional voting records as its yardstick, it assumed that media outlets have ideologies similar to those of members of Congress who cited the same think tanks that the media outlets did.

This approach is based on the problematic notion that politicians cite the think tanks that they most agree with rather than the ones whose citation will be the most politically effective—a problem the researchers acknowledge when they attempt to explain away some curious anomalies that their method produces. (The National Rifle Association comes out as a centrist group; the Rand Corporation turns out to be left-leaning.)

If the authors truly wanted to rank media outlets on the ADA scale, the simpler method would be to look at the ADA ratings of congressmembers quoted by those news outlets. One suspects that the authors avoided this obvious approach because the results would have been less to their liking: Studies in Extra! have repeatedly found various media outlets quote Republicans more often than Democrats, by ratios ranging from 3 to 2 on NPR (5–6/04) to 3 to 1 on nightly network news (5–6/02) to a startling 5 to 1 on Fox News’ Special Report (7–8/04). Fox News, according to Groseclose and Milyo’s method, is a “centrist” news outlet.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2534