Do you believe the "mainstream media" has a liberal bias? (1 Viewer)

[jdoggydogg]

I'll preface this by disclosing that I am a progressive Democrat.

I believe that a study was done years back that showed the majority of reporters were Liberal. But does this matter? "The Liberal Media" is parroted over and over by men who work for The Corporate Media. And this is the problem. Mainstream American media, be it FOX, CBS, CNN, or whatever, has become derelict in its duty. Our media is constantly censored, and the only power that the media answers to is monolithic multi-naitonal corporations.

We're seeing massive coverage of Anthony Weiner's sex scandal - and will so for weeks to come. Meanwhile, we lost five American soldiers in Iraq yesterday. Somehow, that terrible story is buried under an avalanche of meaningless bull####.

I'd recommend this to anyone that consumes corporate news: get your news from somewhere else. Somewhere ethical. www.factcheck.org comes to mind.

 

[Jewell]

Some very interesting and thoughtful posts here, especially by Yankee23fan, Honky Kong, and jon_mx, though I don't quite agree with any of them:

1. Yankee states that there's always been a bias in the media throughout American history. Well, yes and no. Certainly guys like Pulitzer and Hearst were biased, but when broadcast journalism began, there was a real effort to provide objective reporting which was largely accepted by the public. Guys like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite held the majority of the public's trust, regardless of the politics of the viewer, because they appeared to be neutral. Their personal politics were irrelevant (Murrow, though now a liberal icon, was a conservative, while Cronkite was very liberal) because they APPEARED to present the news in an objective fashion, and people bought into it.

But this all changed with the Vietnam War. Because the reporting of that war was so graphic, many conservatives accused the media of being anti-war and pro-liberal. The first major accuser was Spiro Agnew, but conservatives have continued with this charge ever since.

Yup.

Yup. And even once the mainstream bias became apparent during the Vietnam era, there were few conservative sources to place the mainstream bias in contrast too. Some people sensed a bias, but that bias didn't seem as blatant then because people weren't as regularly being exposed to the other side of the coin. Once Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the internet sprung up conservatives now had an opposing narrative, albeit a biased one itself, to compare the mainstream media to. The mainstream media's bias then seemed more pronounced because people were now comparing it to their news source which has a bias from the opposite direction rather than comparing it to nothing.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I am mobile, so very limited on linking or doing anything thorough. But a specific example would be back in January of 2006. We had a great year economically. Two million new jobs. 3.6 percent growth. Wages up 3.1 percent. The New York Times business section story is that none of that is due to Bush's policies, wages did not keep up with inflation, Bush lacks concern for the middle class, Bush is ignoring important issues such as the deficit and raising feul prices.OK, that is fine. They raise legitimate counterpoints, although in reality those numbers were damn good by any measure. Now fast forward to this week. Job numbers miss the mark by 100K and are a paultry 56K. How is it reported. Yeah, it is disappointing, but it is much better than when Bush left office. No criticism of Obama's policies, or how Obama does not seem to care about the raising deficit or feul prices. How it should be reported is criticize when there is reason to criticize and praise when there is reason to praise. The media was usually in attack mode when Bush was in office and in excuse mode now that Obama is in office. I know you disagree, but I don't even see how it is a point of contention.

Context - nobody created fewer jobs as a president than George W. Bush since Herbert Hoover in . Coming off of 22.7 million jobs created by Clinton, the 1.1 million created in Bush's terms look pretty bad.So far, Obama is off to a bad start in job creation - but most acknowledged that he started behind the 8-ball following Bush. Even so, the US created 1.1 million jobs in 2010 (the same as Bush's eight-year term), and thus far in 2011 an additional 783,000 jobs created.So, we'd like to be doing better - need to be doing better. But by comparison, Obama looks like his policies are performing better than Bush's.

Interestingly, the last 5 republican terms (Bush, Bush, Bush, Reagan, Reagan) averaged just under 1% job growth per term. While the last 5 democrat terms (Obama, Clinton, Clinton, Carter, LBJ) averaged 2.2% job growth per term.

I have no idea what that has to do with anything I stated or the OP. My example was to illustrate bias in reporting, not to argue which president was better. Even when there were good years under Bush, the media still crapped on him.

The context did not help Bush, and does help Obama. Coming off tremendous growth under the Clinton administration, Bush looked REALLY bad. While coming off the tepid growth under Bush, Obama does not look as bad (although his numbers are worse thus far).The mainstream media story is simple - Clinton created a bunch of jobs, Bush ruined the economy, Obama inherited a bad economy and is making the best of a bad situation. This influences the tenor of the articles/reports on the subject.

Except when you go back and look at the numbers, Bush actually inherited a recession from Clinton. Shortly after the election, the numbers for the previous two quarters happened to be revised and showed downward trends in the economy. Which makes sense since that was when the tech bubble was bursting, tons of people were losing their jobs due to tech companies all going out of business, and huge amounts of fictitious stock values were being wiped off of the market.

 

[timschochet]

Some very interesting and thoughtful posts here, especially by Yankee23fan, Honky Kong, and jon_mx, though I don't quite agree with any of them:

1. Yankee states that there's always been a bias in the media throughout American history. Well, yes and no. Certainly guys like Pulitzer and Hearst were biased, but when broadcast journalism began, there was a real effort to provide objective reporting which was largely accepted by the public. Guys like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite held the majority of the public's trust, regardless of the politics of the viewer, because they appeared to be neutral. Their personal politics were irrelevant (Murrow, though now a liberal icon, was a conservative, while Cronkite was very liberal) because they APPEARED to present the news in an objective fashion, and people bought into it.

But this all changed with the Vietnam War. Because the reporting of that war was so graphic, many conservatives accused the media of being anti-war and pro-liberal. The first major accuser was Spiro Agnew, but conservatives have continued with this charge ever since.

Yup.

Yup. And even once the mainstream bias became apparent during the Vietnam era, there were few conservative sources to place the mainstream bias in contrast too. Some people sensed a bias, but that bias didn't seem as blatant then because people weren't as regularly being exposed to the other side of the coin. Once Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the internet sprung up conservatives now had an opposing narrative, albeit a biased one itself, to compare the mainstream media to. The mainstream media's bias then seemed more pronounced because people were now comparing it to their news source which has a bias from the opposite direction rather than comparing it to nothing.

But see, I don't think it did. I think that what happened was that conservatives didn't like what they were seeing on the news and decided that it was easier to blame the messenger than to accept the reality of the situation. And basically that's what they've been doing ever since, to some degree or another.

 

[Jewell]

Some very interesting and thoughtful posts here, especially by Yankee23fan, Honky Kong, and jon_mx, though I don't quite agree with any of them:

1. Yankee states that there's always been a bias in the media throughout American history. Well, yes and no. Certainly guys like Pulitzer and Hearst were biased, but when broadcast journalism began, there was a real effort to provide objective reporting which was largely accepted by the public. Guys like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite held the majority of the public's trust, regardless of the politics of the viewer, because they appeared to be neutral. Their personal politics were irrelevant (Murrow, though now a liberal icon, was a conservative, while Cronkite was very liberal) because they APPEARED to present the news in an objective fashion, and people bought into it.

But this all changed with the Vietnam War. Because the reporting of that war was so graphic, many conservatives accused the media of being anti-war and pro-liberal. The first major accuser was Spiro Agnew, but conservatives have continued with this charge ever since.

Yup.

Yup. And even once the mainstream bias became apparent during the Vietnam era, there were few conservative sources to place the mainstream bias in contrast too. Some people sensed a bias, but that bias didn't seem as blatant then because people weren't as regularly being exposed to the other side of the coin. Once Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the internet sprung up conservatives now had an opposing narrative, albeit a biased one itself, to compare the mainstream media to. The mainstream media's bias then seemed more pronounced because people were now comparing it to their news source which has a bias from the opposite direction rather than comparing it to nothing.

But see, I don't think it did. I think that what happened was that conservatives didn't like what they were seeing on the news and decided that it was easier to blame the messenger than to accept the reality of the situation. And basically that's what they've been doing ever since, to some degree or another.

No doubt that happens on both sides. Hear any good Faux News jokes lately?

 

[jon_mx]

Some very interesting and thoughtful posts here, especially by Yankee23fan, Honky Kong, and jon_mx, though I don't quite agree with any of them:

1. Yankee states that there's always been a bias in the media throughout American history. Well, yes and no. Certainly guys like Pulitzer and Hearst were biased, but when broadcast journalism began, there was a real effort to provide objective reporting which was largely accepted by the public. Guys like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite held the majority of the public's trust, regardless of the politics of the viewer, because they appeared to be neutral. Their personal politics were irrelevant (Murrow, though now a liberal icon, was a conservative, while Cronkite was very liberal) because they APPEARED to present the news in an objective fashion, and people bought into it.

But this all changed with the Vietnam War. Because the reporting of that war was so graphic, many conservatives accused the media of being anti-war and pro-liberal. The first major accuser was Spiro Agnew, but conservatives have continued with this charge ever since.

Yup.

Yup. And even once the mainstream bias became apparent during the Vietnam era, there were few conservative sources to place the mainstream bias in contrast too. Some people sensed a bias, but that bias didn't seem as blatant then because people weren't as regularly being exposed to the other side of the coin. Once Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the internet sprung up conservatives now had an opposing narrative, albeit a biased one itself, to compare the mainstream media to. The mainstream media's bias then seemed more pronounced because people were now comparing it to their news source which has a bias from the opposite direction rather than comparing it to nothing.

But see, I don't think it did. I think that what happened was that conservatives didn't like what they were seeing on the news and decided that it was easier to blame the messenger than to accept the reality of the situation. And basically that's what they've been doing ever since, to some degree or another.

Tim, you need to come out of the closet and just embrace the fact that you are a Democrat partisan hack.

 

[timschochet]

Since the examples jon provided aren't convincing to me, let me go ahead and give examples of my own which over the years has caused me to have the impression that the news is generally "neutral":

1. The Monica Lewinsky scandal was reported in a way quite damaging to a Democratic president. If there was truly some sort of heavy bias, I have to believe this story would have been reported very differently.

2. The invasion of Iraq was treated by cheerleading by the network news. Again, if there was a heavy bias, I would think it would have been reported differently. I have to contrast this with Clinton's Kosovo action, which was challenged on network news as being a possible "Wag The Dog" scenario- there were no equal questions about Bush's motives in 2003.

3. After the Bork and Clarence Thomas supreme court nominations, conservatives argued that the media was "out to get" conservative nominees for the Supreme Court, that these two instances were proof of severe bias, and that we could expect the same treatment for any future conservative nominee. Yet when Harriet Miers was selected, the bulk of the criticism came not from the media but from conservative sources. And when Roberts and Alito were selected, I thought both were treated extremely fairly and with respect. So once again I believe this accusation by conservatives has been proven false.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, you need to come out of the closet and just embrace the fact that you are a Democrat partisan hack.

That's probably why I'm going to most likely end up voting for Mitt Romney in the next election.

 

[timschochet]

Some very interesting and thoughtful posts here, especially by Yankee23fan, Honky Kong, and jon_mx, though I don't quite agree with any of them:

1. Yankee states that there's always been a bias in the media throughout American history. Well, yes and no. Certainly guys like Pulitzer and Hearst were biased, but when broadcast journalism began, there was a real effort to provide objective reporting which was largely accepted by the public. Guys like Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite held the majority of the public's trust, regardless of the politics of the viewer, because they appeared to be neutral. Their personal politics were irrelevant (Murrow, though now a liberal icon, was a conservative, while Cronkite was very liberal) because they APPEARED to present the news in an objective fashion, and people bought into it.

But this all changed with the Vietnam War. Because the reporting of that war was so graphic, many conservatives accused the media of being anti-war and pro-liberal. The first major accuser was Spiro Agnew, but conservatives have continued with this charge ever since.

Yup.

Yup. And even once the mainstream bias became apparent during the Vietnam era, there were few conservative sources to place the mainstream bias in contrast too. Some people sensed a bias, but that bias didn't seem as blatant then because people weren't as regularly being exposed to the other side of the coin. Once Fox News, conservative talk radio, and the internet sprung up conservatives now had an opposing narrative, albeit a biased one itself, to compare the mainstream media to. The mainstream media's bias then seemed more pronounced because people were now comparing it to their news source which has a bias from the opposite direction rather than comparing it to nothing.

But see, I don't think it did. I think that what happened was that conservatives didn't like what they were seeing on the news and decided that it was easier to blame the messenger than to accept the reality of the situation. And basically that's what they've been doing ever since, to some degree or another.

No doubt that happens on both sides. Hear any good Faux News jokes lately?

It definitely happens on both sides.

 

[jon_mx]

Tim, you need to come out of the closet and just embrace the fact that you are a Democrat partisan hack.

That's probably why I'm going to most likely end up voting for Mitt Romney in the next election.

Denial is the first sign. One day you will just openly embrace it amd you will be much happier for it..

 

[Jayrod]

I voted slight liberal bias.

I just think the majority of people in media lean left in their ideology, especially on social issues. IMO, there is a level of disdain among reporters for the religious conservatives on issues like abortion and gay rights and it bleeds through in their reporting at times. I see it there more than anywhere. As far as on fiscal or actual specific candidates, I consider the mainstream media to be fairly neutral.

 

[CBusAlex]

We're seeing massive coverage of Anthony Weiner's sex scandal - and will so for weeks to come. Meanwhile, we lost five American soldiers in Iraq yesterday. Somehow, that terrible story is buried under an avalanche of meaningless bull####.

That's because the American public has told the news outlets, through our viewership, that we prefer less coverage of Iraq and more of Wiener's wiener. The fault, dear Doggydogg, is not in our networks, but in ourselves.

 

[Ilov80s]

We're seeing massive coverage of Anthony Weiner's sex scandal - and will so for weeks to come. Meanwhile, we lost five American soldiers in Iraq yesterday. Somehow, that terrible story is buried under an avalanche of meaningless bull####.

That's because the American public has told the news outlets, through our viewership, that we prefer less coverage of Iraq and more of Wiener's wiener. The fault, dear Doggydogg, is not in our networks, but in ourselves.

Exactly. The "mass media" looks at news stories like NBC looks at their fall lineup: what will get the best ratings?

 

[jon_mx]

We're seeing massive coverage of Anthony Weiner's sex scandal - and will so for weeks to come. Meanwhile, we lost five American soldiers in Iraq yesterday. Somehow, that terrible story is buried under an avalanche of meaningless bull####.

That's because the American public has told the news outlets, through our viewership, that we prefer less coverage of Iraq and more of Wiener's wiener. The fault, dear Doggydogg, is not in our networks, but in ourselves.

Some of their coverage is for ratings, such as celebrity gossip and sex scandal items, but that is only a part. Their still is a hard news part which is heavily biased by the overwhelming pressence of liberals in most of the newsrooms.

 

[Ilov80s]

We're seeing massive coverage of Anthony Weiner's sex scandal - and will so for weeks to come. Meanwhile, we lost five American soldiers in Iraq yesterday. Somehow, that terrible story is buried under an avalanche of meaningless bull####.

That's because the American public has told the news outlets, through our viewership, that we prefer less coverage of Iraq and more of Wiener's wiener. The fault, dear Doggydogg, is not in our networks, but in ourselves.

Some of their coverage is for ratings, such as celebrity gossip and sex scandal items, but that is only a part. Their still is a hard news part which is heavily biased by the overwhelming pressence of liberals in most of the newsrooms.

The hard news still operates with the goal of making money. Is the media overall more liberal than the democratic party?

 

[jdoggydogg]

We're seeing massive coverage of Anthony Weiner's sex scandal - and will so for weeks to come. Meanwhile, we lost five American soldiers in Iraq yesterday. Somehow, that terrible story is buried under an avalanche of meaningless bull####.

That's because the American public has told the news outlets, through our viewership, that we prefer less coverage of Iraq and more of Wiener's wiener. The fault, dear Doggydogg, is not in our networks, but in ourselves.

Who is "ourselves"? Nielsen ratings? Do you know a Nielsen family? America's valiant reportage has vacated network television and now only resides in a handful of newspapers and a few reputable web sites.

 

[jdoggydogg]

We're seeing massive coverage of Anthony Weiner's sex scandal - and will so for weeks to come. Meanwhile, we lost five American soldiers in Iraq yesterday. Somehow, that terrible story is buried under an avalanche of meaningless bull####.

That's because the American public has told the news outlets, through our viewership, that we prefer less coverage of Iraq and more of Wiener's wiener. The fault, dear Doggydogg, is not in our networks, but in ourselves.

Exactly. The "mass media" looks at news stories like NBC looks at their fall lineup: what will get the best ratings?

 

[jdoggydogg]

We're seeing massive coverage of Anthony Weiner's sex scandal - and will so for weeks to come. Meanwhile, we lost five American soldiers in Iraq yesterday. Somehow, that terrible story is buried under an avalanche of meaningless bull####.

That's because the American public has told the news outlets, through our viewership, that we prefer less coverage of Iraq and more of Wiener's wiener. The fault, dear Doggydogg, is not in our networks, but in ourselves.

Some of their coverage is for ratings, such as celebrity gossip and sex scandal items, but that is only a part. Their still is a hard news part which is heavily biased by the overwhelming pressence of liberals in most of the newsrooms.

The mainstream media is a wholly-owned subsidiary of corporate interests. Do you think General Electric is owned by long-haired, dope-smoking, tie-die-wearing hippies? Jon, I highly recommend you check out projectcensored.org. The amount of real news that is censored in this country is startling.

 

[Saints-Man]

...

Wiki:

In March 1999, a few months after the allegations publicly aired, 56% of Americans believed the allegations were false, while a third believed that Broaddrick's allegation of rape was at least possibly true. Similarly, 29% of the public felt the press should continue to cover the story, while 66% felt that the media should stop pursuing the story.[8]

According to Jack Nelson, Washington bureau chief of the Los Angeles Times, many journalists were skeptical: "This is a story that's been knocked down and discredited so many times, I was shocked to see it in the [Wall Street] Journal today.... [E]veryone's taken a slice of it, and after looking at it, everyone's knocked it down. The woman has changed her story about whether it happened. It just wasn't credible."[9] Joe Conason and Gene Lyons' book The Hunting of the President argued that Broaddrick's claim is not credible and contains numerous inconsistencies.

So 2/3 of the public thought the media should stop pursuing the story, yet the MSM is biased for not pursuing the story?

Might as well print the rest of the Wiki article for there seems to be disagreement on the credibility issue:

Michael Isikoff's book, Uncovering Clinton, and Christopher Hitchens' book, No One Left to Lie To, argued that Broaddrick's claim is credible and shows similarities to Paula Jones' later allegation of sexual harassment. Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen commented, "And yet, I cannot get [broaddrick's] accusation out of my head. On television, and in interviews with newspaper reporters, Broaddrick appeared credible."[10]

[edit] Legal consequences

Clinton's attorney, David Kendall, denied the allegations on Clinton's behalf. No legal action, civil or criminal, was taken against Clinton or Broaddrick based on the allegation. Broaddrick was never called as a witness during President Clinton's impeachment proceedings in January 1999.[6] In his book, Sellout: The Inside Story of President Clinton's Impeachment, Schippers said he wanted to call Broaddrick as a witness to discuss Clinton's intimidation, but it was too late.[11]

Broaddrick filed a lawsuit against Clinton in the summer of 1999, to obtain documents which the White House may have gathered about her, claiming its refusal to accede to her demand for such documents violated the Privacy Act of 1974. The case was dismissed in 2001. During the lawsuit, Broaddrick's business was audited by the IRS which she charged was retaliation: "I do not believe this was coincidence," Broaddrick declared, "I do not think our number just came up."[12]

What were the inconsistencies in her allegations?

 

[RCon]

Tim, you need to come out of the closet and just embrace the fact that you are a Democrat partisan hack.

I don't believe timschochet is a liberal or Democrat partisan hack at all. He's pretty thoughtful and considers the issues independently. He happens to be wrong on some of them, but he gives thought to each issue.The one thing I do see him do, though, is to ascribe different motives to conservatives and liberals. When he thinks a conservative is wrong, he tends to ascribe a negative motive to the belief (e.g. racist, greedy, populist, etc.), whereas when he thinks a liberal is wrong, he typically ascribes a neutral or positive motive (e.g. "nuanced", incorrect but thoughtful, uninformed, etc.). I'm not sure why he does this, but he appears (to me) to do it relatively consistently.

 

[wikkidpissah]

If we changed the designation "conservative" to "closed-minded" and that of "liberal" to "open-minded" we would now actually have a clearer picture of the truth than we do with the present labels being bandied-about.

I'm a freakin' commie and, except for a few teacher's union types (a substantial part of leftist politics, to be sure, but a far lower % of those termed liberal than birthers are of conservatives) i havent met a "liberal" with an agenda in 30 yrs. Lefties are, by nature, diffuse in their opinions.

In that same time, i have hardly met a "conservative" without one. Beyond that, i dont much care. Maybe "non-conservatives" would be the better designation, because everyone who is "not one of us" is a liberal to the righties anymore.

 

[jdoggydogg]

If we changed the designation "conservative" to "closed-minded" and that of "liberal" to "open-minded" we would now actually have a clearer picture of the truth than we do with the present labels being bandied-about.

I'm as Liberal as they come, but I disagree with this. Mostly because I know Liberals that are incredibly closed-minded. Ask the wrong Liberal in this city what he thinks about childhood vaccines, and he'll tell you that they cause autism and he won't let his child get vaccinated. That's pretty ####ing close-minded.

 

[jon_mx]

If we changed the designation "conservative" to "closed-minded" and that of "liberal" to "open-minded" we would now actually have a clearer picture of the truth than we do with the present labels being bandied-about. I'm a freakin' commie and, except for a few teacher's union types (a substantial part of leftist politics, to be sure, but a far lower % of those termed liberal than birthers are of conservatives) i havent met a "liberal" with an agenda in 30 yrs. Lefties are, by nature, diffuse in their opinions.In that same time, i have hardly met a "conservative" without one. Beyond that, i dont much care. Maybe "non-conservatives" would be the better designation, because everyone who is "not one of us" is a liberal to the righties anymore.

Liberals don't have an angenda?? That is one of the oddest claims I have ever heard. Liberals are the most agenda driven activists there are. Really odd theories being made.

 

[Ilov80s]

If we changed the designation "conservative" to "closed-minded" and that of "liberal" to "open-minded" we would now actually have a clearer picture of the truth than we do with the present labels being bandied-about. I'm a freakin' commie and, except for a few teacher's union types (a substantial part of leftist politics, to be sure, but a far lower % of those termed liberal than birthers are of conservatives) i havent met a "liberal" with an agenda in 30 yrs. Lefties are, by nature, diffuse in their opinions.In that same time, i have hardly met a "conservative" without one. Beyond that, i dont much care. Maybe "non-conservatives" would be the better designation, because everyone who is "not one of us" is a liberal to the righties anymore.

Liberals don't have an angenda?? That is one of the oddest claims I have ever heard. Liberals are the most agenda driven activists there are. Really odd theories being made.

It isn't an agenda if you agree with it.

 

[wikkidpissah]

If we changed the designation "conservative" to "closed-minded" and that of "liberal" to "open-minded" we would now actually have a clearer picture of the truth than we do with the present labels being bandied-about.

I'm as Liberal as they come, but I disagree with this. Mostly because I know Liberals that are incredibly closed-minded. Ask the wrong Liberal in this city what he thinks about childhood vaccines, and he'll tell you that they cause autism and he won't let his child get vaccinated. That's pretty ####ing close-minded.

Didn't say "correct" picture - only "clearer" than it presently is. I know the type of which you speak but, in a way, they actually support my point. A person isnt a person without feeling strongly, even if stupidly so, about something. On the left side of the spectrum, however, that about which they care is wide-ranging. "Litmus testers" are pathetic on either side, but even those lefties who use one can find a regular commonality with those who dont share that specific view. Right-siders appear to need the collegiality of adhering to a party line with their hot button issues, and it has become indeed around those planks that subsets like Tea-partiers are formed.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, you need to come out of the closet and just embrace the fact that you are a Democrat partisan hack.

I don't believe timschochet is a liberal or Democrat partisan hack at all. He's pretty thoughtful and considers the issues independently. He happens to be wrong on some of them, but he gives thought to each issue.The one thing I do see him do, though, is to ascribe different motives to conservatives and liberals. When he thinks a conservative is wrong, he tends to ascribe a negative motive to the belief (e.g. racist, greedy, populist, etc.), whereas when he thinks a liberal is wrong, he typically ascribes a neutral or positive motive (e.g. "nuanced", incorrect but thoughtful, uninformed, etc.). I'm not sure why he does this, but he appears (to me) to do it relatively consistently.

I'm not really aware of doing this, but I will pay attention and see if you're correct.

 

[NCCommish]

If we changed the designation "conservative" to "closed-minded" and that of "liberal" to "open-minded" we would now actually have a clearer picture of the truth than we do with the present labels being bandied-about.

I'm as Liberal as they come, but I disagree with this. Mostly because I know Liberals that are incredibly closed-minded. Ask the wrong Liberal in this city what he thinks about childhood vaccines, and he'll tell you that they cause autism and he won't let his child get vaccinated. That's pretty ####ing close-minded.

Yeah but that's about being stupid and listening to someone whose claim to fame is being naked a few times. That has nothing to do with liberal or conservative. Some from both groups are on that sinking ship.

 

[wikkidpissah]

If we changed the designation "conservative" to "closed-minded" and that of "liberal" to "open-minded" we would now actually have a clearer picture of the truth than we do with the present labels being bandied-about. I'm a freakin' commie and, except for a few teacher's union types (a substantial part of leftist politics, to be sure, but a far lower % of those termed liberal than birthers are of conservatives) i havent met a "liberal" with an agenda in 30 yrs. Lefties are, by nature, diffuse in their opinions.In that same time, i have hardly met a "conservative" without one. Beyond that, i dont much care. Maybe "non-conservatives" would be the better designation, because everyone who is "not one of us" is a liberal to the righties anymore.

Liberals don't have an angenda?? That is one of the oddest claims I have ever heard. Liberals are the most agenda driven activists there are. Really odd theories being made.

If you had even an ounce of value on this board, i would beg the point with you. Don't expect me to, jon.

 

[Jayrod]

If we changed the designation "conservative" to "closed-minded" and that of "liberal" to "open-minded" we would now actually have a clearer picture of the truth than we do with the present labels being bandied-about. I'm a freakin' commie and, except for a few teacher's union types (a substantial part of leftist politics, to be sure, but a far lower % of those termed liberal than birthers are of conservatives) i havent met a "liberal" with an agenda in 30 yrs. Lefties are, by nature, diffuse in their opinions.In that same time, i have hardly met a "conservative" without one. Beyond that, i dont much care. Maybe "non-conservatives" would be the better designation, because everyone who is "not one of us" is a liberal to the righties anymore.

 

[jon_mx]

If we changed the designation "conservative" to "closed-minded" and that of "liberal" to "open-minded" we would now actually have a clearer picture of the truth than we do with the present labels being bandied-about. I'm a freakin' commie and, except for a few teacher's union types (a substantial part of leftist politics, to be sure, but a far lower % of those termed liberal than birthers are of conservatives) i havent met a "liberal" with an agenda in 30 yrs. Lefties are, by nature, diffuse in their opinions.In that same time, i have hardly met a "conservative" without one. Beyond that, i dont much care. Maybe "non-conservatives" would be the better designation, because everyone who is "not one of us" is a liberal to the righties anymore.

Liberals don't have an angenda?? That is one of the oddest claims I have ever heard. Liberals are the most agenda driven activists there are. Really odd theories being made.

If you had even an ounce of value on this board, i would beg the point with you. Don't expect me to, jon.

So you make a crappy post, and instead of owning it you go for the insult. Sweet move.

 

[tommyboy]

large groups of liberals are as close minded as you can get. Your idea is nice in theory but almost non-existent in reality.

granted, you could probably say the same thing about large groups of republicans as well.

 

[NCCommish]

Actually, they usually call it lamestream media, in lock step with their inspirational leadership.

Yiu have it backwards. It were bloggers and individuals who first used the term and the leadership followed.

This is true BTW.

 

[jon_mx]

Tim, you need to come out of the closet and just embrace the fact that you are a Democrat partisan hack.

I don't believe timschochet is a liberal or Democrat partisan hack at all. He's pretty thoughtful and considers the issues independently. He happens to be wrong on some of them, but he gives thought to each issue.The one thing I do see him do, though, is to ascribe different motives to conservatives and liberals. When he thinks a conservative is wrong, he tends to ascribe a negative motive to the belief (e.g. racist, greedy, populist, etc.), whereas when he thinks a liberal is wrong, he typically ascribes a neutral or positive motive (e.g. "nuanced", incorrect but thoughtful, uninformed, etc.). I'm not sure why he does this, but he appears (to me) to do it relatively consistently.

I'm not really aware of doing this, but I will pay attention and see if you're correct.

Sorry Tim, I was just giving you a bit of a hard time. On social issues you about as far left as they come, but you are neutral and open on fiscal items. But Rich is right, you have a tendency to ascribe motives to large groups of conservatives.

 

[jon_mx]

Doesn't look to be the results the OP expected.

 

[NCCommish]

Doesn't look to be the results the OP expected.

I don't know what he expected but I'm not surprised. If someone questions anything a conservative says and they happen to be in the media it must be liberal bias. GOPers are never wrong after all and all their policies are sweetness and light for us to bathe ourselves in. Who'd want to get in the way of that but a mean old biased liberal?

 

[Truman]

If we changed the designation "conservative" to "closed-minded" and that of "liberal" to "open-minded" we would now actually have a clearer picture of the truth than we do with the present labels being bandied-about.

I'm as Liberal as they come, but I disagree with this. Mostly because I know Liberals that are incredibly closed-minded. Ask the wrong Liberal in this city what he thinks about childhood vaccines, and he'll tell you that they cause autism and he won't let his child get vaccinated. That's pretty ####ing close-minded.

Interesting. I would have thought that kind of fear-mongering in the face of all scientific evidence would appeal more to right wing extremists.

 

[honky kong]

If we changed the designation "conservative" to "closed-minded" and that of "liberal" to "open-minded" we would now actually have a clearer picture of the truth than we do with the present labels being bandied-about.

I'm as Liberal as they come, but I disagree with this. Mostly because I know Liberals that are incredibly closed-minded. Ask the wrong Liberal in this city what he thinks about childhood vaccines, and he'll tell you that they cause autism and he won't let his child get vaccinated. That's pretty ####ing close-minded.

Interesting. I would have thought that kind of fear-mongering in the face of all scientific evidence would appeal more to right wing extremists.

I think it does generally but no one is immune to it.

 

[Defenze]

I thought the original question for this thread was: Do you believe the "mainstream media" has a liberal bias? I rather think that is a rhetorical question. Had you asked that question in say 1975 you may have been able to debate the answer. Not in 2011. The answer to the question is resounding yes it is. If anyone would love to read or study this subject I point you toward a book by Benard Goldberg entitled "Bias", A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News" Goldberg was a CBS reporter for 30 years and gives a blistering account of what it was like to work for the liberal slanted network.

You see it's not of a question of, "is the mainstream media liberal"? They are liberal. But the question should be are they honest enough to admit that they are? Fox has numerous reporters and commentators and analyst (O'Reilly, Hannity, Cavuto etc) who readily admits on a regular basis that they are right leaning and conservetive. They are not dishonest about it. They do not hide it or deny it. In fact they are very proud of it. This is exactly why the majority of news watchers in America watch Fox news more than all the other networks combined. They know what their getting. Americans appreciate honesty in news reporting.

Alas at NBC, ABC,CBS, MSNBC, this is not the case. They fain ignorance and deny any sort of bias in their reporting. When confronted by their numbers they can't understand why no one is watching them. They slant the news so far left that is has become laughable at times. CBS tried to boost ratings by replacing an aging Dan Rather with Katie Couric and rating continued to drop. Why? In this case it wasn't just the messager but the way it was being presented. People had lost faith in CBS because of it refusal to admit it's liberal slant on things. And to replace Rather with a liberal women was the straw that broke the camels back for some.

So my answer to the question in this thread is yes. The mainstream media is liberal and left wing bias. My question would be when will the "liberal slanted media" admit it.

 

[jdoggydogg]

If we changed the designation "conservative" to "closed-minded" and that of "liberal" to "open-minded" we would now actually have a clearer picture of the truth than we do with the present labels being bandied-about.

I'm as Liberal as they come, but I disagree with this. Mostly because I know Liberals that are incredibly closed-minded. Ask the wrong Liberal in this city what he thinks about childhood vaccines, and he'll tell you that they cause autism and he won't let his child get vaccinated. That's pretty ####ing close-minded.

Interesting. I would have thought that kind of fear-mongering in the face of all scientific evidence would appeal more to right wing extremists.

I live in Northern California North of San Francisco. There's are two little towns here named Sebastopol and Forestville. From what I've read, these are the least-vaccinated cities in the United States.

 

[bakes]

I'd love it if there were a true left wing progressive source. Just because it'd shut up the whining from the Fox "News" quarter about the rest of the channels.

 

[jdoggydogg]

I'd love it if there were a true left wing progressive source. Just because it'd shut up the whining from the Fox "News" quarter about the rest of the channels.

Do you listen to progressive radio stations? Randi Rhodes and Rachel Maddow are awesome.

 

[tommyboy]

I'd love it if there were a true left wing progressive source. Just because it'd shut up the whining from the Fox "News" quarter about the rest of the channels.

Do you listen to progressive radio stations? Randi Rhodes and Rachel Maddow are awesome.

randi rhodes is like bread to anger starved libs.

 

[The Big Guy]

It is really amazing to listen to BBC News or even Al Jezzera and hear their version of an international event, or even their version of something that happens in the USA and you will then see how almost all news here is presented with some sort of leading bias, so as not to report, but to guide your opinion as well.

 

[urbanhack]

large groups of liberals are as close minded as you can get.

amazing the things you can learn in here.

 

[urbanhack]

ABC News:

*in bed with Brietbart - check

*promoting Ann Coulters book this morning on GMA - check

*liberal media - check

 

[Defenze]

ABC News:*in bed with Brietbart - check*promoting Ann Coulters book this morning on GMA - check*liberal media - check

They do things like this sometimes to boost ratings. Its bad medicine, but most of the time it works.

 

[DawgPoundNJ]

I'd love it if there were a true left wing progressive source. Just because it'd shut up the whining from the Fox "News" quarter about the rest of the channels.

Do you listen to progressive radio stations? Randi Rhodes and Rachel Maddow are awesome.

Yeah, best ever. Making repeated jokes about shooting your president is the open minded, tolerant liberal thought we all need.

 

[CBusAlex]

Interesting. I would have thought that kind of fear-mongering in the face of all scientific evidence would appeal more to right wing extremists.

Apparently, it depends on whether the person doing it is a preacher or a porn star.

 

[guderian]

When I read an article in the mainstream media that presents 'both sides' of an argument inevitably the left side of the argument is presented in a thoughtful, fact-based manner. The right side of the argument is typically taken from the irrational, fringe and is littered with cliche characterizations and straw men. Case-in-point the healthcare debate. The 'right' side of that argument was typically presented as fears of 'death panels' or the bill was a direct government takeover of healthcare. While many of us feel that the latter is true, our argument was that it was more of a long-term, in-direct takeover that would be driven by incentives, penalties, taxes and regulatory creep. I read a lot about health care during that time and very few of the arguments that were being pushed by the core of the conservative side were being presented accurately.

Since study after study shows that the media is dominated by left leaning journalists--which adds to my perception that most of the content presented my the media is from left leaning sources filtered through left leaning journalists.

 

[jon_mx]

nearly 70% see a liberal bias and 16% see a conservative bias. You can try to blow that off as a bias of the FBG population, but FBGers are among the straightest shooters at the net.