Mr. D said: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 because it was the liberal media that created iran-contraits always the liberal media that CREATE, & START the controversies in the first place
Mr. D said: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!
mpg said: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?
desmontheses said: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!
mnpollock said: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 said: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.
Mr. D said: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!
SPLOGAN said: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.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2534Academics 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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?