"The left and its mouth piece the liberal media..."

[Goofball]

I got the title of this thread from the content of one of Gawain's recent posts, and rather than clutter up that thread, I decided to start a new one.

Here's the thing:

I have heard conservative Org members time and time again complain about how the American media are nothing more than a tool of the left, but so far I have never really seen anything to back up that complaint.

Although I am Canadian, I take in a lot of American media product. In the morning while I eat my breakfast and iron my shirt, I typically watch CNN. During the day, I will visit MSNBC online for my mid-day updates. In the evening, I've even been known to get a little crazy and take in a little Fox News.

Quite frankly, I have never seen any evidence of any kind of systemic tendency of the American mainstream media to demonize the right and champion the left. In fact, it appears to me to be quite the opposite.

As a non-American, when I watch your news, the "feel" I get is that all of your major networks tend to be on side with promoting a general theme of American nationalism and flag-waving, which is decidedly more in keeping with right-wing ideology than it is with left.

I think the reason you righties feel so picked on by the media is that you currently run the entire country. The media tend to make it their purpose in life to leave no stone unturned when it comes to digging up dirt on the powerful. Since Republicans are currently in charge of your entire government, it stands to reason that they will be the main targets. But this has nothing to do with right or left. It's simply a question of what sells more papers or attracts more viewers.

Cripes, just look at the field day the media had with Clinton when he was diddling that chubby intern. They certainly pulled no punches when that was going on.

So please, here is your chance conservatives. In this thread, show us all of the examples of the mainstream media being blatantly lef-wing biased.

[Byzantine Prince]

Do you actually expect a serious responce for this?

The "liberal media" is a buzzword or phrase that is often used by the neocon extremists to make it seem like they are oppressed. It's part of their apeal. They are so "smart" and "extreme" for us to understand. Instead they talk about how the uncovering of their corruptions are part of a scheme that the left has devised to destroy them.

[Csargo]

Its all Propaganda my friends Propaganda.

[PanzerJaeger]

Have you ever seen Frontline back in the days of Moyers? How about the life and times of Dan Rather. All the way from "The Guns of August" where he falsified information to push a left wing agenda Memogate where he falsified information to push a left wing agenda.

If not, Bernard Goldberg's first book was a pretty good expose on the MSM. I wouldnt reccomend any of his other books though, he seems to have lost his touch since that one.. he has gotten a lot older though.

You are right in a sense though. From the 70s to the early 90s the news was very heavily biased towards the left, but these days its more of a fair fight..

The vast popularity of FoxNews gave network execs a taste of the strong desire for a little more balance and different opinions in the news, so stations such as MSNBC and others have tried to diversify a bit recently. Of course there are the elitist holdouts from the Watergate era, but they are quickly dying out.

9/11 also had a lot to do with some of the recent purging of the ultra leftists in some forms of the MSM. Nobody has the stomach anymore for the "Blame America First" crowd.

I, and apparently a majority of Americans, like the media to give America the benefit of the doubt. After years of living in the shadow of the Vietnam era, the media seems to have figured that out.. hence the little pins they where everyday.(The one Bill Moyers refused to where. )

[Goofball]

Have you ever seen Frontline back in the days of Moyers? How about the life and times of Dan Rather. All the way from "The Guns of August" where he falsified information to push a left wing agenda Memogate where he falsified information to push a left wing agenda.

IIRC (and I could be wrong) it seemed that Rather wasn't so much falsifying info as he was accepting false info as fact without making any effort to verify it. And while you believe that his motive was to push a left wing agenda, I believe that his motivation was simpler (and much more egotistical) than you give him credit for: Dan Rather wanted to enhance his own reputation and add to the Dan rather personality cult/myth. Nothing more.

The vast popularity of FoxNews gave network execs a taste of the strong desire for a little more balance and different opinions in the news, so stations such as MSNBC and others have tried to diversify a bit recently. Of course there are the elitist holdouts from the Watergate era, but they are quickly dying out.

I'm not trying to take a shot here PJ, but I find it comical that you (and other conservatives) actually buy into the FOX's self-claim of being "balanced." They are extremely right-wing, and take very few pains to hide it. But you know what? I don't think that means they are part of any conspiracy to try to support the right wing agenda.

As with Rather, I think FOX's motives are much more base. I'll tell you why FOX takes a right wing slant: some MBA read the mood of the country correctly and observed that nationalism, hawkishness, and "right-wingishness" in general are what Americans want to see right now. Since that is what people want, that is what FOX (and to some extent, the other networks) gives them. It's simply a question of wanting to produce a product that people will buy, not trying to push a political agenda.

[Tribesman]

The vast popularity of FoxNews gave network execs a taste of the strong desire for a little more balance and different opinions in the news,
Balance ????Fox news
Since when has any of Murdochs many media outlets shown anything even slightly resembling balance ?

[JAG]

It does amaze me, Fox one day suddenly comes up with the phrase 'fair and balanced' - wow what an idea eh? - then puts it all over their screen as they broadcast and suddenly they are not an extremely right wing corporation - just one of the many right wing media outlets owned by Murdoch - but a 'fair' and 'balanced' one.

Yet you still think that it is the right that sees the reality and the right that doesn't buy into media BS?

[Redleg]

If one only watches the Television News programs - one is only reviewing part - and I mean a very small part of the news that is out there.

The broadcast media sells to an audience - so therefor Goofball is correct - they give their audience exactly what they are wanting. Be it the truth or a version of the truth that will ensure that the willing consumer continues to tune in to their channel so that the adds will continue to sell - therefor lining the pockets of everyone involved with cold hard cash.

It is up to the individual to read multiple sources to get to a "balanced" view of events. If one refuses to read and view the multiple sources that are available for any one story - one's viewpoint becomes skewed toward the biased inherent in that source of information.

For the most part I rarely watch television newscasts unless it is for local traffic and weather reports. I rather read multiple sites on the internet with key word searches to get information - and attempt to come to an understanding of what is going on from multiple information sources.

Now my own baised views sometimes interfer with my ability to grasp the truth of what is being report - but you can normally find the problems and opinions express in the news if one does not relay on only one source for information.

Is there a slant in the American Broadcast news - indeed there is - however has Goofball has correctly pointed out - its toward what will insure ratings for the network or news agency. And it periodically shifts between the politicial spectrums that are in the United States. The exact same thing can be said for any for profit news outlet across the globe.

Thomas Jefferson's quote in my Signature applies even more to television news then it did to the newspapers of his day.

[Xiahou]

Balance ????Fox news
Since when has any of Murdochs many media outlets shown anything even slightly resembling balance ?

I think it's funny whenever a conservative mentions Fox, the usual suspects always come out to bash them...

If media leans left, and a right leaning network comes on the scene- then yes, that is "a little more balance". I really don't think he said FoxNews was "fair and balanced"

On topic, for my part, it's tough just to march out all of the news stories that are pushing an agenda- it's not like I mark down every one that I see. But, as I see them, I'll link some of them here. In the meantime Goof, I'd suggest you watch any Whitehouse press briefing if you really want to see the wolves closing in for the kill.

Here's 1 story, to get us started, that's in the headlines that I personally feel is ridiculous.
FEMA accused of Censorship

[Goofball]

On topic, for my part, it's tough just to march out all of the news stories that are pushing an agenda- it's not like I mark down every one that I see. But, as I see them, I'll link some of them here. In the meantime Goof, I'd suggest you watch any Whitehouse press briefing if you really want to see the wolves closing in for the kill.

So is it your position then that if a Democrat was in the Whitehouse the press briefings would be nothing more than love-ins with softball questions aimed at making the President look good?

Do you really think the press are only "closing in for the kill" because it happens to be a Republican in office?

[Tribesman]

I really don't think he said FoxNews was "fair and balanced"
But Fox does , it also has that dickhead who says "No Spin"

[PanzerJaeger]

Well youve got your opinion and Ive got mine Goof.

As long as were trying to get to the bottom of the whole bias issue, can anyone give some quick examples of Fox's bias? Im sure there are plenty of them..

[Redleg]

LOL - what a side show this is turning into.

Here is a bit of an update to my favorite Thomas Jefferson quote.

The man who neither views nor listens to the broadcast news networks is better informed of events then the man who only watches broadcast news networks.

[Aenlic]

I've found the Christian Science Monitor, oddly enough, to be the most unbiased source, both online and in print. It tends to just present the facts without too much editorializing. It isn't perfect; but it's less filled with the slant of the day than the typical so-called "liberal" or "fair and balanced" media.

[Papewaio]

Australians own your media!

Submit now, or we will send in the Wiggles! And our own B1 and B2 in PJs.

[Adrian II]

Australians own your media!

Submit now, or we will send in the Wiggles! And our own B1 and B2 in PJs.

Send more Kylies and we will submit.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Does anybody apart from Redleg and Lemurmania read newspapers and magazines (or their websites) anymore? Or is it all pics & blogs these days? Ach never mind. Why contribute anything worthwhile if this is going to be locked anyway.

Thats because there mostly liberal rags nowdays I read US News and World Report and the Wallstreet journal now and then.

According to this Christian web site in a 2001 article, a Pew Center report showed that as far back as 2001, only 30% of people in the U.S. got their news from the "big three" networks' news. That isn't quite "the majority of Americans" is it? Hmmm, perhaps the numbers have gone up since 2001 for network news viewership! Possible? Maybe. Likely? Not really.

And your point? I said the mainstream press was losing credibility in the eyes of the average American and you just proved my point. By the way the numbers have and still are going down. As the democratic party sinks so does its mouth.

[Ronin]

it allways amuses me that a country with some of the most conservative media i have ever seen (it seems to range from "moderate-right" like your cnn an nbc to "man these guys are so crackpot right wing that they make me afraid" good old FOX) but you still have a good part of the population bitching about the "liberal media bias".....i don´t know what these people would have the media be.......and frankly it´s too early in the morning to freak myself out by trying to imagine it.

[Aenlic]

And your point? I said the mainstream press was losing credibility in the eyes of the average American and you just proved my point. By the way the numbers have and still are going down. As the democratic party sinks so does its mouth.

Did you state that the majority of people in America watch the big three networks? No. That was someone else, wasn't it? Then why are you directing a response to me fr a post I made that is specifically addressing a different point made by someone else? What is it with this practice of arguing against points that aren't even made? Is it something in the water over there in Conservative Club II land? Let's try an easy one.

Apple ‡ Orange

Now, where were we?

[Navaros]

I have heard conservative Org members time and time again complain about how the American media are nothing more than a tool of the left, but so far I have never really seen anything to back up that complaint.

sure you have seen plenty of leftwing propaganda. you just choose to ignore it because you agree with the leftwing propaganda that stations like CNN (and all other major networks these days) propagate

ie: CNN and these other networks will often refer to the murdering of a babies as "the right to choice". that is a propaganda statement, and one which implicitly condones & endorses murdering babies, just like leftwingers do

there are many many other examples too. they are quite easy to pick up upon for anyone who cares to look

[Navaros]

Wait--So you're saying the majority of americans choose to ignore this so-called propaganda because they agree with it? Think about that.

not all Americans do agree with the propaganda. many speak up about it, and it is their collective outrage at it that has caused the original poster to bring up this topic


as for "the majority": in my view the majority of people are stuck in their natural, inherently evil state hence it would not be surprising if they choose to ignore any propaganda which drives an agenda that is compatible with evildoing

[Aenlic]

Not a trace of bias there at all.

If the "right to choose" is propaganda, then isn't "murdering babies" propganda as well? Or is the second phrase not propaganda because you agree with it? I'm confused.

Remember before responding, Navaros, that I oppose abortion.

[Adrian II]

CNN and these other networks will often refer to the murdering of a babies as "the right to choice". that is a propaganda statement, and one which implicitly condones & endorses murdering babies, just like leftwingers do

I often watch CNN on my cable in The Netherlands and I never, ever hear them refer to abortion as anything else but 'abortion'. I wonder if you ever watch CNN. I believe you are dreaming this up.

[Slyspy]

I was quite surprised to find a supplement containing articles from that famous left-wing oracle The New York Times in the generally right-wing Telegraph this week.

[Adrian II]

I was quite surprised to find a supplement containing articles from that famous left-wing oracle The New York Times in the generally right-wing Telegraph this week.

May I add that the crypto-Communist The Washington Post has been much more efficient in investigating and discrediting NO local and LA state officials' claims about Katrina over the past ten days than any right-wing or Republican outlet?

[A.Saturnus]

For those of us who actually like to pretend that they are interested in facts instead of just voicing their opinions, it might be interesting for once if we made a step back and talked one moment about what would possibly be evidence for or against liberal media bias.
You know, whenever this topic is resurrected, it´s the same. The usual suspects on one side name several anecdotes that "prove" their view and the usual suspects on the other side then do the same. After that it is down to yelling and pointless claims. Every time I´m asking myself - how the hell do they know that anyway? A conservative who believes ABC to be biased will probably prefer to watch other sources. Since he watches ABC only scarcely, how can he judge reliably that it is biased? Does anyone of you watch channels he doesn´t like 24 hours a day to find out for sure that it is biased? Could you - and that refers to both sides - consider the possibility that you are biased, and not the channel? Obviously, the best judges would be those how don´t give a damn. Unfortunately, they usually have no opinion on it.
Is it really a clear sign of media bias if a guy on the channel says something you don´t agree with? If you think not, the question is just what would be a clear sign. How could conservatives make their claims stronger and how could lefties disprove them?
Try for once - even if it is hard - to imagine that your opponent is not entirely crazy and would possibly yield to a superior argument. Then think about, if you were him, what would convince you? Even if that then fails to convince your opponent, you can claim to have tried it.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Did you state that the majority of people in America watch the big three networks? No

NO

I made that is specifically addressing a different point made by someone else?

I see now it was Dave. Sorry Dave your wrong. The American people are not that dumb. Now in Europe most probably do get their news from the mainstream media . Namely the BBC. Yet they think its fair and balanced LOL.

[Goofball]

Good thread so far guys.

Redleg, I think you have probably the healthiest attitude toward the media: take everything with several grains of salt and try to take in as wide a range of sources as possible.

Aenlic, thanks for the pointer on the Christian Science Monitor, I'm going to give it a try. That may be the most valuable bit of info I've seen in this thread so far.

PJ thanks for your efforts to keep the thread on topic and for being just about the only one who actually responded to the original purpose of the thread: trying to show some evidence of liberal bias in the media. I disagree with what your sources had to say and I question their objectivity, but even so I will be watching CNN with a much more critical eye in the future.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Here's one example I remembered:

Remember when Cheney made a comment on the Senate floor that rhymed with 'duck moff'? The media made a great big ole deal out of it.

What you probably didn't hear of is when Kerry, in a radio interview-ie when people were supposed to be listening, when he was talking to the public!-used a word which rhymes with 'ducking'. But the media didn't make a peep.

Here's another:

The national guard 'memo', which the MSM fell over itself promoting (literally), while totally ignoring as best they could the swift boat vets for truth. The media decided not to talk about it at all because of their bias. The swift boat vets had more serious (and much more substantial) allegations, but were ignored. Just think if the roles had been switched, if a democrat group had been attacking a republican pres (cough Cindy Sheenan cough). The MSM would have had stories about them for days.

Here's another:

You may remember the MSM writing a lot of articles this last election about the terrible economy and how it looked grim and dire. In fact, the economy was stronger and better statistically in almost all (if not all) ways than in 1996, (when Clinton was running for reelection). But in 1996 the MSM couldn't stop exclaiming the vibrance of the economy.

In conclusion, the media (TV, newspapers, newsmagazines) are, mostly, just the left's mouthpiece. They spout the democrat line (the majority of people in the industry are self-proclaimed democrats) because that's what they think is best.

Crazed Rabbit

[Redleg]

.

Redleg, I think you have probably the healthiest attitude toward the media: take everything with several grains of salt and try to take in as wide a range of sources as possible.

Don't give me to much credit - I still fall victim on certain topics of only seeing what I want to see - regardless of the number of sources I take in.

Edit: A large precentage of the time what we are taking for baised in the Media is actual our own baised views. Or at least that is my opinion.

Futher Edit: For instance take a good look at how many times in our discussions on Same-Sex marriage we have both mis-read each other statements. That it happens with others should also provide a clue toward how baised is viewed especially when it appears in the media. I am not the only one guilty of mis-reading - all of us are guilty of it.


We read and watch the media that fits our own views for the most part. Any story that does not fit within our view - is therefore baised and should be discounted. Look at discussion points within the forum - just pick any three threads - and see how people skew things to support their own prespective of events. When someone doesn't see it the way we want to see it - we either attempt to discredit their source, make assumptions about their postions, and my favorite tactic using selective reasoning to attack the opposite viewpoint. The sad thing is that the so called professional journalists are using the same amatuer debating tactics that make discussions in the .Org so enjoyable at times - and can be frustrating at other times. But the professional journalists should be above such behavior in their reporting - because if my memory serves me correctly their used to be such a thing as Journalistic Ethics.

Adrian could probably expound more on that point then I.

Selective Reasoning is a sure sign of baised views.