# The politics of the media



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The Liberal Media
Every Poll Shows Journalists Are More Liberal than
the American Public - And the Public Knows It

By Rich Noyes
Director of Research
June 30, 2004
Executive Summary 
Over the next four months, the media establishment will play a central role in informing the public about the candidates and the issues. As the countdown to Election Day begins, it is important to remember the journalists who will help establish the campaign agenda are not an all-American mix of Democrats, Republicans and independents, but an elite group whose views veer sharply to the left.
*Surveys over the past 25 years have consistently found that journalists are more liberal than rest of America. *This MRC Special Report summarizes the relevant data on journalist attitudes, as well as polling showing how the American public's recognition of the media's liberal bias has grown over the years:
* Journalists Vote for Liberals*: Between 1964 and 1992, Republicans won the White House five times compared with three Democratic victories. But if only journalists' ballots were counted, the Democrats would have won every time.

* Journalists Say They Are Liberal*: Surveys from 1978 to 2004 show that journalists are far more likely to say they are liberal than conservative, and are far more liberal than the public at large.

* Journalists Reject Conservative Positions*: None of the surveys have found that news organizations are populated by independent thinkers who mix liberal and conservative positions. Most journalists offer reflexively liberal answers to practically every question a pollster can imagine.

* The Public Recognizes the Bias*: Since 1985, the percentage of Americans who perceive a liberal bias has doubled from 22 percent to 45 percent, nearly half the adult population. Even a plurality of Democrats now say the press is liberal.

Here a link to the studies

http://www.mediaresearch.org/SpecialRep ... 063004.asp


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Just a few thoughts:

1. I am not surprised by the results of the survey since I associate liberalism with tolerance, openess, and being informed and accepting about the world around us. Most people in the media deal with written information or images of the world around them. Therefore, they are bound to see images and information about different cultures and viewpoints.

2. As we have discussed in the past, people define "liberal" differently. My definition of liberal is set in a social context. I view liberalism hand in hand with tolerance, openess, and a willingness to accept change. Others view liberalism in a political context (i.e. wanting big government). I would be interested in what definition was used in the survey.

3. A true journalist's goal is to report facts (who, what, why, where, when). Therefore, we can't assume that a person's individual social or political beliefs will compromise their journalistic duties.

4. My personal view is that the media is becoming more conservative. Just look at the large number of conservative talk shows on the radio, the conservative writers who have columns in newspapers, and Fox News on TV. People who say that they can't find an alternative to the "liberal media" are not looking very hard.

5. We all look at things with a certain bias. I am a life-long National League baseball fan, and I recall many World Series in which I was angered by what I thought was bias from the announcers. I recently saw a re-showing of game 6 from the 1991 World Series between the Twins and my beloved Atlanta Braves. Watching the footage years later, I did not hear that bias. If we are hypersensitive and looking for bias, we will find it (or at least think we found it).

6. All private media sources are businesses interested in making a profit. Therefore, they give consumers what they want to hear. Remember shortly after 9/11 tragedy and our invasion of Afghanistan? I can't remember a time when folks were so patriotic and intolerant of any views contrary to mom, apple pie, and the American way. Remember the Dixie Chicks and the uproar that came out of that? Those times were hardly "liberal", and I was amazed at how scared the newspapers and television stations were of airing any stories that would result in public backlash.

Now fast-forward to 2004. The media has shifted to airing more stories criticizing and questioning our policy in Iraq and the Middle East. Why? Because more citizens are questioning our policy in Iraq and the Middle East. That's what people are talking about, so that's what the media is talking about.

In summary, I don't think that our media is liberal or conservative, it's opportunistic. Journalists report the facts, while editors and producers decide what gets published or aired, and how it gets published or aired (front page or back page, 1 minute story or 10 minute spot). I think that many editors and producers simply want to give their consumers what the consumers want to see, read, and hear. As supply and demand shifts, so does the content in most media outlets. If consumers don't like what they see or read in one newspaper or TV station, they will shift. The free market will respond to fill any voids. It's just that simple.


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

Bigdaddy it was indeed refreshing to read your post, one that was not laced with the usual vitriol. And also an intelligent use of logic and facts. :beer: Thank you,


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

You're right that the media is getting some liberal elements talk radio ect, it used to be almost all liberal. ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN ect are liberal with very few exceptions. 
I disagree with your accessment


> I think that many editors and producers simply want to give their consumers what the consumers want to see, read, and hear


This is the heart of the problem the editors and producers want to tell us *how to think about it *instead of just reporting the facts, all of them, and letting the listeners decide. They emphasize the stories that support their political view point and downplay the ones that don't. And never in my lifetime have I seen it at this level of bias with the resulting dishonesty.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bigdaddy

Kind of funny the way we can see things differently. I know liberals constantly talk tolerance, but I see them as the most intolerant people. They verbally attack you when you do not agree. They especially like to insinuate that maybe you are not to smart, remember Dan Quail and Bush? They said Gore would make a short job of Bush if Bush had the guts to debate. I guess they see themselves as the intellectual elite. Children must really be confused, they go to school and the first thing they get is the schools zero tolerance policy, then for the next nine months most of the teachers try pound tolerance into their heads. Unfortunately most liberals would like me to be tolerant of things I do not approve of and they do. A little leverage for them I guess. When someone uses the word tolerance I normally write them off as not standing for anything. After all Bigdaddy I am sure there are things you are intolerant of. I am intolerant of murder, rape, robbery, etc etc. I am sure you will say sure that is just common sense. I agree, it is a matter of where you draw the line. If you are unwilling to draw any lines, then let those of us who have convictions at least draw the lines that we see. Liberalism must be when ones life constantly contradicts itself. Tolerance is akin to politically correct, and the majority of people will become just as sick of it. It has been unpopular to speak out against the tolerance mantra, but I notice it is loosing popularity. The people who espouse it think we should be quit. I think the political pendulum went far left and now it is swinging back, and it's time to speak up popular or not.


----------



## BigDaddy (Mar 4, 2002)

Plainsman:

I guess that we see things differently. Maybe the "liberals" that you refer to are not liberals at all.

Again, I view liberalism as a "live and let live" philosophy. In other words you can do whatever you want to do, say whatever you want to say, and look however you want to look as long as it is legal and safe. However, like you said, there are boundaries to such behaviors. These boundaries are largely defined by the law, with the primary criteria being health and safety.

Yes, there are things that I am not tolerant of. I am intolerant of anything that hurts others. I am intolerant of racism, sexism, and any other form of prejudice that puts somebody at a unfair disadvantage based soley on race, sex, sexual preference, religion, or similar characteristic.

However, at the same time, I am a staunch defender of personal liberty. I believe in freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Therefore, even though I absolutely disagree with the racist positions of groups like the KKK, I feel strongly that they have the right to express their beliefs.

I would sum it up that liberalism is concerned with tolerance for diverse opinions and right to free expression, but not for hateful or harmful behaviors. I don't see how this is contradictory at all. Any "liberal" that trys to curb free speech or free expression is not a liberal at all.

You relate liberalism to politically correct, and I contend that they are different. Liberalism is a social philosophy, and my definition has been described here and elsewhere. In contrast political correctness is an effort to not label a particular social group in a defamatory or insulting way.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bigdaddy

Perhaps the root of our disagreement is not in lifestyle but in definition. You see I agree that no one should be looked down upon because of race, sex, religion, or many other things. I do not however think this demands tolerance. It does not require tolerance because non prejudice is what should be expected of everyone. Of course no one should be disadvantaged because of sex, religion, race, or many other things, This is just common decency. Tolerance to me carries the connotation that someone is doing something wrong, but that I should except it anyway. In face to face arguments that I have had with liberals this is the manner in which they have used it, like a hammer. It is a shame that we must have laws about prejudice because it is something that should not require a law. Not being prejudice is something that should be innate within us all. I am however not naïve enough to believe that is possible.

The attributes you have outlined are not liberal ideas, they are American ideas. It is offensive that a liberal would somehow think that only they are capable of perceiving right and wrong, but that is evidently how some think. What I have found in the real world is that liberals do not practice what they preach. My personal experience is if they do not agree with my political views they will use tolerance or political correctness to put me down. Even when tolerance or political correctness have nothing to do with the argument at hand.

My beef about political correctness is it is false. If you simply use another word for the same condition it makes it no kinder. In some cases it may be, but it has been used to access. For example we need no other term to describe short people. In most cases they use a term linked with challenged, as if the person has some kind of defect. In many cases the politically correct term that liberals use I find offensive. These are common sense things, but then there are many people out there with little commons sense.

I don't think our disagreement is with behavior it is with definition. I assure you liberals do not singly possess compassion for their fellow men and women. I have found liberals to be ever bit if not more intolerant, simply of different things than conservatives, and there in lies our differences. I once heard a person say (no idea if this person was liberal or conservative) "if there is anything I will not tolerate it is intolerance". Do you see any humor in this? I do. You have admirable ideas Bigdaddy, the only thing I would disagree with is that anyone should be able to do anything they want if it is legal and doesn't hurt anyone. If you think about this for a while I am sure that soon you will think --- perhaps we need a few new laws. There are some sick things on this internet that are legal that I find very offensive. I just have not found a good way to be publicly intolerant of them. I think we are all morally bound to be intolerant of some things or we will never have new and needed laws. On this web site I hear people that are intolerant of what caliber a person uses for deer, how far they shoot at deer, fox, ducks etc etc. Intolerance is live and well, sometimes offensive, sometimes politically correct. 
In ending I would like to say my beef is with these terms like tolerant, politically correct, and ethical being simply used as weapons in political battle. The liberals have no special connection to these qualities they belong to all of us. I find these terms most often used as offensive put downs of the opposition, and there in lies the hypocrisy.


----------



## ksec (Jul 10, 2004)

Thank you for your post using facts and not just a bunch of hot air like the OP.

You show intelligence , fairness and dont buy into the Faux news BS that is just a cheerleader for the corporate world and the Elite Rich.


----------



## ksec (Jul 10, 2004)

People like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity define Conservatism today. They are extremist and a danger to the America we all grew up with. They have redefined the term Liberal into a new definition and people like the previous poster have bought into it. Listen to their mouthpiece Rush. He says we are immoral slobs that wanna eat your children. hehe Really guys I think its wrong for one group to redefine the other and then ask why we dont like the label. Lets say we redefined Liberalism to mean a group that Lies to start wars, pretends to be religious while oking torture and corporate whoring and have sent our best men into a quagmire in Iraq that is bringing many of them home in bodybags. Or have screwed up the real war on terror by going to Iraq to get a beaten down Dictator who had nothing to do with 911 while Bin Laden plots against us. Would you like to wear that label around? I sure wouldnt.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Funny how liberals hate to be defined for what they are and conservatives are proud of their view. Ksec flaming liberals like you probably won't ever get it, you define yourselves with your viewpoints. All Rush and Hanity do is point out what your viewpoint really is ( because you don't want it to be known just like you don't want to have everybody know you are a liberal) and thats all it takes to show the truth...


----------



## Buckshot (Nov 5, 2003)

> Again, I view liberalism as a "live and let live" philosophy. In other words you can do whatever you want to do, say whatever you want to say, and look however you want to look as long as it is legal and safe. However, like you said, there are boundaries to such behaviors. These boundaries are largely defined by the law, with the primary criteria being health and safety.


There in lies the problem with the liberals. The criteria being health and saftey, what noble ideaology to adhere too.
Health and safety of the population is very important, but I don't need the government telling me to wear my seat belt in a vehicle, or to put my child in a car seat. 
I'd rather not have them telling restaurants to not allow smoking in their private business.
With health and safety as the criteria for law making, there is no end in sight to law-making.
To me what makes a liberal happy is to take away happiness from another individual. They strive for everyone to be equally miserable, not until then will they give up on their quest.
They can't seem to stand the fact that someone enjoys something more than them and they will not stand for it. They have to take away his happiness and make him miserable like everyone else.
What they can't get over is the fact that some people just don't quit looking at the bright side.

I'm reminded of a story about twin brothers, one an optimist and the other a pessimist. The father couldn't figure out why one was so happy and the other always bitter. So on their birthday he took the pessimist and put him in a room filled with all the toys and gifts he could ever want. And to the optimist, placed him in a room filled with horse manure. 
When he went to check on them, all he heard was grumbling and complaining from the pessimist's room, Saying stuff like 'This will break and thats a piece of junk'. But when he went to the optimist's room, he was surprised to hear giggling and laughing. When he opened the door, there his son sat on the floor throwing horse manure into the air with a grin from ear to ear. The only thing his son said was 'Where there is this much manure, there must be a pony'.


----------



## ksec (Jul 10, 2004)

Liberalism has absolutely nothing in common with what your mouthpieces like drug addicted Rush and gayboy Sean Handjob have told you. Youve been bamboozled by the corporate owned media mouthpieces who hate what real Liberalism is so theyve redefined it into this sinister sneering child eating monster. Keep spewing the propaganda youve been spoonfed by corporate media, neocons. As we can see, your misinformed arses are catching up with you and your lying warmongering President who has killed 1000 of our best soldiers while ignoring those who attacked us on 911.

They love those types who are ignorant, uneducated and too lazy to actually study the truth and instead mouth the words that others with agendas have drilled into those shallow minds . Everytime you post the nonsense you just prove what Ive said here.

Spew on puppet.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Is there a real leftist bias in the mainstream news?

One recent morning--the Sunday before Memorial Day--I picked up the Asheville (N.C.) Citizen-Times and started looking through national news coverage. You know, the stuff that is filtered through the lens of liberal bias long before it even reaches local papers, which rarely revise what they get off the wire services.
In a story on Donald Rumsfeld's remarks to the graduating class at West Point, here is the lead paragraph: "Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, making no mention of the prisoner abuse scandal that has led to calls for his ouster, told a cheering crowd of graduating cadets Saturday that they will help win the global fight against terror."

Let's see, how could there be any bias in that? Every word is true, right?

Except for this: The first thing mentioned, the lens through which we are forced to view the rest of the story, is something that did not happen and that only an idiot would expect might happen: Mr. Rumsfeld mentioning the prisoner-abuse scandal at a commencement address at West Point.

The lead, in other words, is not the graduation that is supposedly being reported, but rather Mr. Rumsfeld's failure to resign in the face of events that happened weeks ago. How is Mr. Rumsfeld's not resigning news? It's mentioned in this story only because the reporter does not want to let go of it.

This is bulldog journalism: Once you get hold of a story, you never loosen your grip until your victim dies--at least politically.

Does it happen to everybody? Or just Republicans? Well, try this fictitious opening paragraph: "Senator Hillary Clinton, making no mention of the $100,000 she once made by trading cattle futures with astonishing perfection, told a cheering crowd of activists that President Bush's globalist economic policy is hurting poor people in other countries and costing American jobs."

*Nope. You've never seen it, and you never will. Because bulldog journalism only goes one way in our "unbiased" mainstream media. *

The only differences between Fox News and all the other news media are (1) they admit that on some issues they take sides, and (2) they allow the conservative side to be heard--*without contempt. *

Fox News, for instance, made the decision after 9/11 that they would display the American flag. This has caused (and still causes) seething resentment from the rest of the news media. Why?

First, it implies that the rest of the news media aren't patriotic. Well, duh. Come on, prior to 9/11--and even after it--they prided themselves on not being patriotic and spoke of people who were self-consciously patriotic with contempt. They thought of themselves as being above national borders. You can't have it both ways, kids.

Second, it's pandering to the ignorant unwashed masses of Americans who want their news from people who are "on our side." Again, duh. When a nation is at war--which on 9/11 we finally realized that we are--we don't want to hear the news from neutral parties. We want the news to be accurate, yes--and Fox has had its share of painfully accurate scoops that nobody wanted to hear, but which we needed to know. *But when a negative story comes out, we want the people telling us the news to say it with regret. And when America wins, we want our news media to tell us with excitement and happiness. *

*In other words, we want to hear the truth from a friend*. From someone who is one of us. And if it took an Australian-born mogul, Rupert Murdoch, to give us an American national news source, so be it.

But let me go on. A story about terrorists murdering civilians and taking hostages in Khobar, Saudi Arabia, *never actually uses the word terrorist*. Instead, the killers are "gunmen" (in the headline), "*suspected *Islamic militants wearing military-style uniforms" and "attackers" (in the body of the story). 
Suspected Islamic militant--this pussyfooting appellation even though later in the story we learn that an Islamic group called "Al-Quds" and signing itself "al-Qaida in the Arab Peninsula" is claiming credit for the attack. But presumably they are only "suspected" of being Islamic militants because, after all, they might turn out to be long-hidden Nazis or perhaps holdouts from the Irish Republican Army or--who knows?--maybe Timothy McVeigh's buddies from the "red states" in America.

That's what makes some Americans turn away from mainstream sources in disgust. *Why in the world is there any need for the news writers to wrap themselves in impartiality when the story makes Islamic militants look bad, but when the story is about our own secretary of defense, he gets slapped around from the first paragraph on? *

This "neutral" approach to a terrorist attack on Americans and other westerners working for American companies in Saudi Arabia is one reason why Fox News is triumphing. Fox makes it clear that they're on America's side, that what happens to Americans abroad is happening to "us"--in short, they feel our pain because they are part of us.

Let's go on to the coverage of Bill Cosby's remarks on the self-defeating actions of some segments of the American black community. In the Asheville Citizen-Times, it's hard to find what is newsworthy about the article at all. Mr. Cosby's remarks are reported as taking place "earlier this month," and there is no event since then to justify considering this new article as "news." 
In fact, the "story" is a thinly disguised editorial, in which Associated Press writer Deepti Hajela seems to be trying to draw the controversy to a "balanced" conclusion. Mr. Cosby's most heated remarks are quoted, but fairly, and in context, and his credentials are respected. Ms. Hajela is not out to "get" him.

After summarizing Mr. Cosby's weeks-ago remarks, Ms. Hajela then gives one paragraph to Jimi Izrael's criticism of Cosby's remarks, who merely objected to Cosby's tone and privileged position. Then Ms. Hajela quotes the Rev. Conrad Tillard of Roxbury, Mass., at some length. Obviously, it was Mr. Tillard's statement that provided the trigger for this article. It's the reason that Mr. Cosby was "news" again--though Mr. Cosby gets the headline to himself because who would read an article headlined "Rev. Tillard answers Cosby"?

Mr. Tillard is first quoted as saying that "Cosby 'could absolutely have' gone even further," and though slavery and Jim Crow had hurt African-Americans, "at the end of the day, we have got to turn the tide." But then Mr. Tillard is quoted as explaining that the real danger of Mr. Cosby's remarks is that white people (i.e., racists) will "seize upon that and try to castigate the African-American community. The conservatives and liberals are far too quick to seize upon a statement and say to the rest of us, 'See, see, it's not us, it's you.' What they have not wanted to acknowledge is that there are still legacies of slavery."

How is this biased? In this editorial-masquerading-as-news, Ms. Hajela is providing us with a "clincher" that tells us what we are supposed to learn from all this: that it would be a bad thing for Americans to let the racists off the hook by telling blacks that they are causing some of their own problems.

Harmless? Sure. *In fact, I agree with Ms. Hajela's editorial. But it was in the news pages, and it was not news, and it was not impartial. It was shaped and designed solely to cause readers to reach a certain opinion. *

Nobody was quoted as saying, "Cosby was absolutely right, it's ridiculous to keep complaining about things that are completely under our own control. We can teach our children to learn standard English and get a good education. We can teach our children not to become criminals, and can hold them responsible for their actions when they do commit crimes, instead of blaming racism."

*Ultimately, both the "pro" and "con" quotes said the same thing: Mr. Cosby had a point, but he shouldn't say it openly because it gives aid and comfort to the enemy. Very PC. Don't we all feel better now? *

Then there's the half-page tie-in to the movie "The Day After Tomorrow," with the headline "Could It Really Happen?" The answer, buried deep in the story, is that of course it couldn't. Geochemist Wallace Broecker, who is the most-quoted source, is paraphrased only in the final paragraph as saying "Hollywood's idea of 'abrupt' is much swifter than nature's, however. Climate shifts unfold over years and decades--not in two reels, said Broecker." 
This is as vague a way of saying *"What this movie actually shows is scientific nonsense" as you could possibly imagine. *

The bulk of the article--especially the crucial first paragraphs and the large-type inset, which are all that most people ever read--say quite a different thing. In answer to the question "could the climate really go bonkers, just like that?" the answer in the article was "Maybe. That was the consensus among researchers at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, a leading center for climate studies."

The next paragraph includes a quote from the observatory's director, G. Michael Purdy: "This is not fantasy. It's happened before. It's well documented."

Which quote will leave the clearest impression in the readers' minds? The fact is, what Mr. Purdy was saying was "not fantasy" and has "happened before" is Manhattan being covered in ice. That was during the Ice Age. It didn't happen in one big storm. And it wasn't caused by human greenhouse-gas emissions.

Furthermore, any institution calling itself an "earth observatory" has a built-in bias. They want to wrap themselves in the much more fact-based science of astronomy, but this isn't an observatory as most of us understand it, it's a group of scientists who have gathered together specifically because they already are true believers in a certain set of viewpoints about the human impact on the environment.

And the large-type inset absolutely treats global warming as a fact (it is still only a suspicion, by rational standards) and ends with this statement, attributed to no one: "Scientists believe this is probably due to man-made 'greenhouse gases' in the atmosphere." Which scientists? Are there scientists who disagree? These matters are not even addressed.

The whole point of this article is to make sure that the people who read it take "The Day After Tomorrow" far more seriously than the film deserves. *Why? Because global warming has become one of the weapons used in the political war to bring down Western civilization, and without necessarily realizing it, the left-biased news media are completely buying into that political agenda. *

Keep in mind that there is no way of knowing whether human greenhouse-gas emissions are causing or preventing disaster, mostly because we don't yet understand the causes of the natural cycles that lead to ice ages and warmer interglacial periods. So at this point, there is zero scientific basis for action. There is only the quasireligious premise that any human change to nature is dangerous and bad. Therefore, if human activities produce gases that might cause a disaster, then we can't afford to wait until the connection is actually proven. We must stop emitting those gases right now.

What they don't tell you is that the only way they are proposing to stop emitting those gases is to have such a drastic change in the activities of Western civilization that it might well lead to devastating impoverishment, and probably to famine and a catastrophic drop in the human population.

But the reporters covering science in America today are so wretchedly miseducated that they don't even know what questions to ask when interviewing biased sources. And they are perfectly willing to make ridiculous statements--which would include any sentence beginning with "scientists believe."

This is the postreligious equivalent of a fundamentalist preacher starting a sentence with "The Bible says." It invokes authority without context, without understanding, and without admitting the possibility of error. (Most self-respecting fundamentalist preachers would at least tell you which book in the Bible they were quoting.)

The fact is that Mr. Broecker is an important scientist, and his model of the "conveyor belt" of warm water in the Atlantic provides a plausible explanation for how ice-age climate changes might happen and why they seem to be restricted to the northern hemisphere, at least in the most recent ice-age events.

*But the article in the paper was not science or even respectable science reporting. *It was designed as propaganda to convince readers that smart people all agree that global warming can cause an ice age like the one depicted in "The Day After Tomorrow," unless we make the radical changes required to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions to levels that true believer claim (but cannot prove) would prevent this disaster.

If the evidence of global warming were a report of burglars operating in your neighborhood, there's enough of it to cause you to check that your doors and windows are locked--but the true believers want you to respond by boarding up your house and moving to another state.

In every case of bias I just cited, the writers would almost certainly be outraged at my accusation that they were doing anything other than reporting the facts as clearly and fairly as possible. It doesn't occur to them that they are biased because they live in a box filled with people who share exactly the same bias. But that's how we human beings create our working definition of sanity--someone who shares the same worldview as his neighbors is "sane," and those who don't are crazy. 
*The left-wing news media live in a tiny village of people who all think (or pretend to think) exactly alike. Therefore, to them any reporter or media outlet that rejects their premises must be insane or dishonest, and instead of seeking to refute them with actual evidence, they merely call them names and accuse them of venal motives. *

The fact remains that on Fox News, and only on Fox News, we get television reportage that gives us at least two sides of every important issue. On all the other TV news outlets--and "mainstream" newspapers--we mostly get coverage that is hopelessly biased. The madmen have taken over the asylum and now, dressed in white lab coats, they pronounce the rest of the world insane.

Keep in mind that I found these egregious examples of bias in a single issue of a single newspaper, randomly chosen. I could do the same thing with any national news broadcast or with any paper in America except the occasional paper that still has a toehold on reality. 
Fox News Channel, on the other hand, claims to have only one bias--it is definitely pro-American--and it presents all the facts and every viewpoint and leaves the decision up to the viewer. Imagine if these news stories had been written from that perspective. They would be barely recognizable--and some of them would not have been written at all.

What makes the liberal bias in the mainstream media so pernicious is that they deny that they're biased and insist that their twisted version of events is "reality," and anyone who disagrees with them is either mentally or morally suspect. *In other words, they're fanatics. And, like all good fanatics, they're utterly convinced that they're in sole possession of virtue and truth.*


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Political reporters think Americans are uneducated and easy to command. They think TV viewers will buy the Crayola-crayon notion that John *Edwards is a Southerner, therefore he is a "moderate."* What a crock of you know what, if hes a moderate I'm a liberal :eyeroll:

Do these people with the advanced degrees in international affairs and pancake makeup techniques really think they don't have to update their political notions beyond 1964? Any journalist who had five minutes on his hands to determine the ideology of Sen. Edwards would learn he has a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of ... 50? 40? Nope. Try 12. *Even the liberal Americans for Democratic Action has him rated at 81 percent liberal, voting with the Left four out of every five votes*. Yes folks he is a liberal look at his voting record. 

*But no reporter wanted to describe Edwards as a "liberal." When the news came out, it was all hosannas. *ABC's Dan Harris touted his regional appeal: "With his Southern accent and son-of-a-mill-worker biography, he may very well appeal to rural voters who the Democrats badly need." CBS reporter Byron Pitts oozed: "with a style as syrupy as Carolina sweet tea, Edwards could also help in the South." NBC's Carl Quintanilla added "John Kerry both formalized Edwards' rock star status and answered Democrats' demands too loud to ignore." *They all obsessed on style, and no one wanted to assess the substance of his voting record *or even his presidential campaign statements from earlier this year.

*That might seem a little strange to anyone who remembers all the way back to 2000, when the addition of Dick Cheney to the Republican ticket was greeted by the media with warnings*. Beware, very ideological candidate approaching! ABC's Linda Douglass said he was one of the "most conservative" members of Congress. CBS's Bill Whitaker branded Cheney as a "rock-solid conservative who manages to appeal to party moderates." On NBC, Tom Brokaw called Cheney a "hard-core Republican with stellar conservative credentials."

*Then the TV fact-twisters went into great detail on Cheney's voting record, or at least into great exaggeration. *ABC's Sam Donaldson asked him why he wouldn't vote to give more money to poor, needy senior citizens. CBS claimed he voted against releasing South Africa's Nelson Mandela from prison in the 1980s, as if Congress could have voted him out of jail. NBC went even deeper into the past, saying Cheney voted against the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, that old feminist manifesto.

*It's easy enough to find votes showing how the media's Edwards, the "Southern moderate," sales pitch is total hooey*. _Sen. Edwards voted against his Senate partner Jesse Helms when he suggested schools should be denied federal funds if they kicked the Boy Scouts of America out of meeting at a school since they wouldn't allow gay scoutmasters. _*The gay lobby has a powerful hold on this Southerner*.

On abortion, try to find where Sen. Edwards feels there should be any limit to the abortion lobby's demands. He's rated 100 percent by the NARAL crowd. Partial-birth abortion? He's a solid vote for that. _Punishing criminals for killing unborn children without a woman's right to choose? He's against that. That's not murder, since it's not really a baby, apparently_. (Wouldn't the litigator in Edwards prefer two victims?) *He voted in favor of giving taxpayer money to schools so they could distribute "morning after" abortion pills to our kids.* If it hadn't passed by a voice vote in the Senate, Edwards probably would have voted against protecting infants who are born alive in a (failed) abortion procedure. Can John Edwards be any more extreme than this?

*Or take Iraq and national security. Where is the difference between Edwards and Kerry; where is the ticket "balanced"? Both senators voted to authorize the war in 2002, and then flip-flopped to deny $87 billion in additional funds for the troops once they authorized sending them to fight.[/b] Edwards voted exactly like his liberal Massachusetts running mate. Maybe he's a fiscal conservative to balance out Kerry's tax-loving instincts? Think again. His National Taxpayer Union and Citizens Against Government Waste scores are dreadful, with percentages in the 'teens. He voted against every Bush tax cut.

So wouldn't any journalist objectively looking at fact say Edwards is as "hard left" as Cheney was "hard right"? Yes. Instead, the use of the L-word to describe Edwards was always attributed as a desperately negative Republican attack line, not the truth. ABC's Kate Snow said Bush and Cheney were cordial to Edwards, and then "it went downhill from there," as the GOP "tore into" Edwards by accurately stating he's a liberal.

The Kerry-Edwards substance-free honeymoon on the networks shows the networks don't believe in balance or fairness. The networks will do anything but wear donkey ears on camera to help the Democrats. If your a liberal fine support him but don't try to convince the rest of us hes some kind of moderate that will " balance out the ultra liberal Kerry" its not going to happen.*


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Well, it looks like former national security adviser Sandy Berger has seriously stepped in it. The former Clinton official is the subject of a Justice Department investigation after removing highly classified terrorism documents and handwritten notes from a secure reading room during preparations for the 9/11 Commission hearings. His home and office have been searched by FBI agents already. Serious stuff.

For his part, Berger and his lawyer said yesterday he took notes and inadvertently removed some of the classified documents. Now, either he didn't mean to do it, and all of this is just a stupid mistake, or there is some other nefarious reason the investigation will discover. Who knows. But here's the point of all this. Notice _*how the media is handling Berger's bungling of the classified material, and ask yourself one question: what if it had been a Republican?*_
What if it had been Bill Frist, or Tom Delay or some other Republican that had done this. *It would be the top story of every newscast, the Democrats would be calling for that person's arrest and screaming for an independent counsel. The media would be polling the public...."do you think Republicans are trying to hide something when they steal classified documents?" There would be no presumption of innocence, there would be no waiting for the investigation to be completed before passing judgment.* :eyeroll: 
Now, there may be a simple explanation for all of this. But if it had been a Bush appointee that had taken the documents, *there would be hell to pay in the media.*
As it stands now, Berger is largely getting a pass. We'll should all wait and see what shakes out before we pass judgement.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Sandy Berger, who served as President Clinton's national security adviser, has acknowledged that he "inadvertently took copies of actual classified documents in a leather portfolio" and that


> "he knowingly removed handwritten notes he had taken from classified anti-terror documents he reviewed at the National Archives by sticking them in his jacket and pants."


 Now thats not a accident this is going to be interesting, I love it :beer:

United Press International reports that David Gergen, a former aide to Clinton and other ex-presidents, told the "Today" show that he thinks Berger's action is "more innocent than it looks." It's hard to think of anything that looks less innocent than stuffing documents into his pants. *Did Berger tell the 9/11 commissioners he was just glad to see them?*
:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Bobm

Not only does the media not want to acknowledge that Berger did anything wrong, this morning Katie Kouric (spelling?) insinuated that the republicans were intentionally leaking the information now for some political gain. So in her view somehow the republicans are the bad guys here. Kind of like the old world kings, when word arrives of a battle going bad kill the messenger.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Its unbelievable isn't it the media brushes this off. :eyeroll: So far at least, I've been in many meeting and never left with the notes in my pockets when I had a brief case with me, hes lying.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

What media bias?

When reporters admit bias or when polls -- like the recent one by The Pew Research Center -- *show that reporters are four to five times more likely to self-describe as liberal vs. conservative*, media defenders use their fallback argument. Elaine Povich, for example, former Capitol Hill reporter for the Chicago Tribune, said, "One of the things about being a professional is that you attempt to leave your personal feelings aside as you do your work."

Really?

Consider Bruce Morton's recent CNN piece. He compared Vice President Dick Cheney to Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., just chosen as Sen. John Kerry's, D-Mass., running mate: "Well, they're different. Boy, are they different. Vice President Cheney -- _Mr. Inside, Mr. War _(emphasis added), once an aide to young Congressman Donald Rumsfeld, was President Gerald Ford's chief of staff, was a congressman, was the first President Bush's secretary of defense, was -- well, you get the idea. Believes in secrecy, _believes in a link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein _(emphasis added), whether the 9/11 Commission agrees with him or not."

CNN's "American Morning" anchor compared an upcoming Kerry campaign speech to one being given on the same day by President George W. Bush: "President Bush heads to the swing state of Florida today. He'll be in Tampa _appealing to conservative voters _(emphasis added) with an address on human trafficking and then to a rally in Beckley, West Virginia. . . . And John Kerry will be in Washington speaking to the American Federation of Teachers. 
He's promising full funding for the No Child Left Behind Act. Later he'll hold a rally in Arlington, Virginia." And exactly what kind of voters did Kerry aim for in his teachers union speech? "Liberal" voters, perhaps?

On the same day, "CNN Headline News" compared the two speeches: "Earlier today, in Tampa, the president addressed the Justice Department conference on human trafficking. He says it's a global problem that the U.S. must tackle head-on. 
It's also an issue _many conservative _(emphasis added) voters say is important in November's election. . . . Bush's Democratic opponent is talking to teachers in the nation's capital today. Right now, John Kerry is addressing the American Federation of Teachers. The Democratic candidate says he would fully fund the No Child Left Behind education reforms authorized by Congress."

Wait a sec. *Again, Kerry's speech before the teachers union, apparently, does not count as a pitch to his "liberal" base? And when did the issue of human trafficking concern primarily "conservatives"? *

CNN's Judy Woodruff, host of "Inside Politics," moments later echoed the same theme: "This hour, John Kerry is here in Washington to accept an endorsement by the American Federation of Teachers and to criticize the president's education policy in the process. . . . Over on the Republican side, President Bush has a rally in West Virginia the next hour, after stopping in another showdown state, Florida, this morning. In Tampa, Mr. Bush urged aggressive law enforcement to combat the crime of human trafficking, _an important issue for evangelical Christians _(emphasis added), a big part of his political base." Move over, "conservative." Now the "evangelicals" care about human trafficking. *Once again, no word on whether Kerry aimed his teachers union speech at his "liberal" constituency. *
Compare the way ABC, CBS and NBC covered the first day in office of President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush. In Clinton's case, he reversed an anti-abortion policy of his predecessors, Presidents Reagan and Bush-41. In Bush's case, he reversed a pro-abortion policy of Clinton's.

Peter Jennings, ABC News, 1993: "President Clinton _kept a promise _(emphasis added) today on the 20th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. Mr. Clinton signed presidential memoranda rolling back many of the restrictions imposed by his predecessors."

Peter Jennings, ABC News, 2001: "One of the president's first actions was _designed to appeal to anti-abortion conservatives _(emphasis added). The president signed an order reinstating a Reagan-era policy . . . "

Tom Brokaw, NBC News, 1993: "Today, President Clinton _kept a campaign promise_ (emphasis added), and it came on the 20th anniversary of Roe v. Wade legalizing abortion."

Tom Brokaw, NBC News, 2001: "We'll begin with the new president's very active day, _which started on a controversial note _(emphasis added)."

Dan Rather, CBS News, 1993: "Today, with the stroke of a pen, President Clinton _delivered on his campaign promise _(emphasis added) to cancel several anti-abortion regulations of the Reagan-Bush years."

Dan Rather, CBS News, 2001: "This was President Bush's first day at the office, and _he did something to quickly please the right flank _(emphasis added) in his party: He reinstituted an anti-abortion policy . . . "

Clinton simply followed through on his promises. Bush, on the other hand, threw a bone to his "conservative" base. *So, what to do? Long-term, more non-liberals need to go into journalism. Short-term, consult alternative news sources. And, as always, read and watch the news defensively.*


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

MEDIA SHELTERING SANDY

Notice how Sandy Berger is nowhere to be found on the front page these days? Just like that, the story is off the front page. Now you see it, now you don't. A blatant example of media bias if there ever was one, but they're getting more and more blatant about it.

A quick check of CNN.com has no stories on the front page about Berger. ABC, CBS..nothing. *Now, just for a minute...ask yourself this: what if Condoleezza Rice had been the one to do this? *What if she had gone into that secured room at the National Archives, left with top-secret documents, and smuggled notes out in her whatever?

*You would not hear the end of it....*and it would still be front page news, right now. As it is now, the media is protecting one of their own...and that means pulling the plug on any coverage of the Sandy Berger affair.

Thankfully, the Justice Department isn't giving up so easily. You're probably going to see Berger arrested and brought up on charges.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Those who have read the entire book "Unfit for Command" say that it the charges that John Kerry trumped up his war record are rather meticulously documented.

Let's take that rescue of Jim Rassman, for instance. Kerry's story is that a mine blew up very close to his boat. Rassman was thrown in the water. There was withering fire from both banks of the river. As the boats in Kerry's group fled down the river Kerry noticed Rassman in the river. He turned around and went back to rescue him. That's Kerry's story. Now for the events as seen by the men who were in the other boats in Kerry's group. The men quoted in the book say that the mine explosion disabled another boat (not Kerry's) in the group. All of the boats except one converged on the disabled boat to rescue the crew. The remaining boat, Kerry's, fled down the river. There was no fire from either bank of the river. When Kerry realized that nobody was shooting he turned his boat around, came back, and pulled Rassman out of the water.

OK .. you have two significantly different scenarios here. Both can't be true. If Kerry's war record is legitimate then he is due all of the accolades he has received. If not .... well, let's just say that in wartime this country doesn't need a president who campaigned on a trumped-up war record, and nothing else.

So .. how about an investigation? The media was quick to demand an investigation into Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. Where are the demands for investigations into Kerry's war record? The winner of this election is going to command our armed forces as we fight Islamic terrorism over the next four years. Don't we want to know if John Kerry is at least being honest about the wars he's already fought?

No investigation? OK .. how about some interviews? * How many of these Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have you seen on the morning shows? *

May I be so bold as to suggest that one possible reason for the media's silence on this issue is that they suspect that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth might actually be telling the truth? Call for an investigation? Are you kidding? *Why promote a story that would defeat your candidate*?


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

The Kerry crowd is running an ad that says that George Bush used his father to get into the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam war. Just so you know, *there is no record anywhere of any interference by or influence brought to bear by Bush the Elder* in Bush the Younger's acceptance into the guard. Not that you leftists care. ( As an aside I personally believe that Bush the Elder probably did pull strings, if he could, what father would'nt? Bushs father I believe was an ambassador and had enough understanding of the inside track and probably new full well that the US wasn't really committed to winning in Vietnam and many kids of my generation used the National guard to avoid the regular army and a trip to Vietnam. ) I guess looking back they were the smart ones.

Point two. *That ad from Moveon.org, *an anti-Bush group financed by a mysterious Hungarian-born international financier, also features an image of someone stamping George Bush's National Guard records with "failure to appear." *There is no such stamp*, and there has never been any charge by the National Guard George Bush failed to appear, or, as the ad says, "went missing." The Moveon.org ad also says that George Bush was grounded. *That, too, is a lie*. George Bush made the decision on his own to relinquish his flying status in the National Guard.

*The point is that it's interesting that the Democrats need to create lies and falsehoods to campaign against George Bush? * And they still are digging into the records voluntarily supplied by George Bush *when Kerry refuses to provide his *:eyeroll: This is so transparent its sickening......


----------



## MSG Rude (Oct 6, 2003)

Bob,

The thing that is killing me as of late is the stem cell research allocation. Dem's are contending that Bush has fought against this research. What they are failing to mention is that there are two types of stem cell research and that Bush has allocated several millions of dollars to be spent for the Adult Stem-Cell research next year while good old Uncle Bill never spent a single dollar for this.

Also, the ads that are attacking Bush for fighting against the homeland security development issue is really ticking me off! SKerry never even showed up for a dang vote on this issue the whole year after 9-11 and now this is his war banner? Makes me sick that they are allowed to run these factual lies on our national TV!

:******:


----------

