Why is the media so overwhelmingly liberal?

[CHARLESMANSON]

Anyone ever wonder why the media is so liberal?

What if you ran a newspaper for instance, and you printed negative press about liberals, gays, minorities, protestors etc.
These groups would be flipping out probably throwing firebombs at your house. They would be waiting outside of your work to meet you at your car.

But if you wrote negative press about conservatives (which almost all papers do), the ramifications are extremely safe. Think about it. Who is the average conservative?
White, successful, family valued, sometimes wealthy.
Does someone like this have the time to go protest or beat people up?? ? Hell No.

I could be totally wrong who knows, but I thought it was interesting. Just saw some threads about Republican offices getting thrashed and raided by liberals so it made me think a little.

Why do you guys think the media is so liberal? Is there more to it?

 

[Eddie Haskell]

I believe the only accurate statement you wrote in your post was "I could be totally wrong...".

Eddie

 

[BobbyBlueChip]

Disagree, Edward.

"think a little" appears accurate as well

 

[I LOVE WR]

LEAVE HIM ALONE YOU BULLIES. ITS NOT HIS FAULT HE'S DUMB. ITS GODS FAULT FOR MAKING CERTAIN PEOPLE DUMB AS POSTS.

THAT LITTLE BEECH THINKS ABOUT ME 24/7. SCARY.

 

[SixFive]

Guys who think the media is not liberal, can you please support that view for me? I'd like to know why you feel that way. Consider the major newspapers and network tv stations. Thanks.

 

[davidjg47]

They are blind as usual, The press and all major news outlets all want Bush out and will print or say anything, Truth or not, to reach that goal.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Wishful Thinking?

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

By David Asman



Last week?s release of the Duefler (search) report on weapons of mass destruction (search) in Iraq demonstrates how desperately the media try to bend a story to fit their own view.

The actual Duefler report concludes that sanctions against Saddam were a massive failure. The report details how successful Saddam was at bypassing the sanctions through the corrupted oil for food program and was preparing to rebuild his WMD program: "[Saddam Hussein] wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted."

The report goes on to say that: "By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo by the end of 1999."

The New York Times managed to flip this view, leading an editorial on the subject with the declarative sentence: "Sanctions worked."

The Washington Post put their editorial twist on the front page, with a banner headline that read: "U.S. 'Almost All Wrong' on Weapons." Never mind that neither the report nor Mr. Duelfer ever said that the U.S. was "Almost all wrong" on WMD. That quote actually came from inspector David Kay, at a Senate hearing in January.

While the Post?s editors were forced to make a correction of their headline, they never explained how an eight-month old quote ended up headlining an article about the findings of an entirely different investigator. Just call it "Wishful editing."

 

[Turfgrass]

ABC Director's Memo Stirs Concern of Media Bias

ST LOUIS - As the presidential race becomes tighter, the media's obligation to report fairly and in an unbiased manner becomes necessary for a fair race.

Canyon News' Declaration of Principles (see link above) is our policy of promise to report the news as it happens without spin or untruths or any sort of bias. In order to stay within our policy, we'll let you be the judge.

The following is an internal memo written by ABC News Political Director, Mark Halperin, dated October 8, 2004:

It goes without saying that the stakes are getting very high for the country and the campaigns - and our responsibilities become quite grave

I do not want to set off and [sic] endless colloquy that none of us have time for today - nor do I want to stifle one. Please respond if you feel you can advance the discussion.

The New York Times (Nagourney/Stevenson) and Howard Fineman on the web both make the same point today: the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.

Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.

We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that.

I'm sure many of you have this week felt the stepped up Bush efforts to complain about our coverage. This is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible with the stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.

It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right.

 

[djv]

I hope it leans to the Liberal side. Other wise we come up short in progress and the establishment would eat us a live. Someone has to hold the governments feet in the fire. Conservatives would rather take there covered wagon go home and think that all is well. We can run this country with town hall meetings. Of course you could 200 year ago. Now things move and can change twice a day. Were past that thinking. They soon Will catch up. It's like stem cell research. It's like going to space. I would say we have more balance now then ever in newspapers. Look at who is supporting Kerry and Bush. It's about even 14 large papers have come out for Kerry and 12 for Bush. Fox has more or less backed Bush. Talk radio is all Bush. NBC you cant tell they are truly balanced. ABC/CBS seem more for Kerry. So what's the problem. Look at this film there going to show on sinclair own stations. No charge. At least to see M Moore film 9/11 you had to pay and the disc you pay for to. And it didn't get 2 hours of free time on TV.
So wheres the beef.

 

[Turfgrass]

Nope no Media Bias here....





http://www.mrc.org/

 

[Eddie Haskell]

BBC:

Your right I missed that. Turf and Wayne selectively cutting and pasteing as usual. No response necessary as I too can cut and paste articles that show the major news outlets present both sides of an issue. Boys, your credibility is at an all time low.

65: How do you prove the media isn't liberal but rather presents both sides. I guess the only way to do it is measure if the media outlet presents both sides of an issue. I know someone posted a website that showed this but I can't recall who, what and where.

I believe most people will follow the media outlet that most reflects their views. Does Fox lean to the right. Yes. Does CBS lean to the left. Yes. Do they both present the other side. Yes. I think it is how they present the issues and what softball questions are asked to those they may favor.

At the athletic club where I belong we have a tv in the room with the stationary bikes. Usually the first one in there gets to pick the station. Funny how the battle between Fox and MSNBC is waged on a daily basis.

I don't know what my right wing fellow athletic club members have against Imus. I think he presents both sides pretty fairly.

Speaking of the athletio club, I recently lost 100 pounds. The main reason I did so was because I grew tired of school children trying to board me everytime I wore yellow.

Seriously, haven't lost 100 pounds but could stand to lose about 20.

Eddie

 

[pirate fan]

I think most people in this forum realize there is bias in the media, on both sides. I think djv was fair in pointing out some of the media outlets and their bias for whomever. The other stuff, I don't think so. We at this forum are educated enough to see the slants by whatever media outlet we are watching so you take it with a grain of salt. The unfairness is, who is reaching the uneducated voter and are they influencing people using untruths? That is wrong. Just give people the facts and the truth, anybody? To bad we gotta figure out peoples and medias bias or agenda to find what is actually true or not.

 

[Turfgrass]

Eddie...how am I "selectively cutting and pasteing" when all I posted was an internal memo written by ABC News Political Director, Mark Halperin?

Maybe you missed the whole thing...

If you have problems with the content counselor blame ABC.

 

[Eddie Haskell]

Irony of all ironies. In usual fashion, Turfgrass links us up to a website which he purports to prove that the media is liberal. However, a little investigation reveals that the link Turfgrass provides it to the Media Research Center.

Pretty impressive, huh. Media Research Center. Gosh, with a name like that they must be some kinda independent group who is fair and balanced. Kinda like the Patriot Act and/or the Forest Restoration Act. We better listen to them and take there word as gospel.

WRONG!!!! AGAIN!!!!! The Media Research Center is a right wing organiziation founded by some clown named Bozell who has frequently appeared as the guest host on Limbaughs radio show and Cal Thomas's radio show.

This guy is one of the most outspoken national leaders of the conservative movement. He is the founder of Parents Television Council. He was the National finance chairman for the BUCHANAN FOR PRESIDENT campaign.

As you said Turfgrass "Yep, no media bias here". Just another of a long line of examples where our right wing friends continue to cut and paste and link the readers of this forum up to websites they purport to be fair, unbiased and neutral sources which have some fancy, schmancy name concocted by Carl Rove which in reality are nothing but organizations set up by the Republicans for the re-election of the worst president in US history.

Once again, the emporer has no cloths.

Eddie

 

[djv]

Eddie I must say you nailed that one.

 

[Turfgrass]

N.Y. Times Deceived by Students' Letters





By Associated Press

October 13, 2004, 5:59 AM EDT

DURHAM, N.C. -- A group of high school students in a summer program at Duke University managed to get several letters published in The New York Times -- some under false pretenses -- at the urging of a professor, an editor for the newspaper said.

The Times generally does not publish letters written for class assignments, but used 17 letters to the editor in a month from students in Mark Duckenfield's international relations course.

Thomas Feyer, letter editor for the newspaper, said students, at the instruction of Duckenfield, wrote the letters about subjects ranging from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to American consumption as if they were submitted from their hometowns instead of Durham.

"They are clearly smart and good writers -- they wrote very nice letters -- but I want people to be up front," Feyer said. "The professor was urging them to deceive us, and it undermines the credibility of the paper if it's discovered as it was in this case."

Two students used pseudonyms after having previous letters published, and another letter, published Aug. 1, contained a misleading statement.

In the letter, the student said she was writing from London in response to an article comparing Americans' consumerism with Europeans' love of leisure and intangibles. She wrote that "her daughter" would prefer a vacation in Paris to the latest camera.

Duckenfield said he didn't want students to pretend to be from Durham, so he told them to use their hometowns. He also said he didn't believe the use of pen names -- a practice he calls a "long literary tradition" -- was a problem and that he didn't want to exclude students from the project because they already had letters published.

"I think that policy (of not printing letters prompted by school assignments) is an absolute disgrace and a real insult to their newest and most idealistic readers," Duckenfield wrote in an e-mail from the London School of Economics, where he currently works.

Duckenfield said students always gave contact information required by the Times, so the newspaper's editors could have reached them.

Feyer said the newspaper tries to get in touch, but sometimes can't contact the letter writers because of time constraints. "I'm not exactly sure what happened in this instance, but we've tightened our safeguards," he said.

 

[Eddie Haskell]

Thanks DJV. I thought so too. TG. What the hell is the point of your reply?

Eddie

 

[djv]

Eddie I think he's telling us Duke part of the Conservative network has sent things to a New York paper from high school students. Don't see how it ties into anything here. Duke right from the middle of the religious right. At least I think most here know that.

 

[Turfgrass]

Duke in the middle of the religious right? You have lost it...

 

[gardenweasel]

an answer to the original question,"Why is the media so overwhelmingly liberal? "

the answer is,that they are a by-product of overwhelmingly liberal academia.....

when liberal doctrine is hammered home at college and university after college and university,and in many cases,high school,those that have trouble forming an independent opinion are basically indoctrinated through repetition...

liberals try to label the republican base as big corporations and the rich.....that`s not entirely true....

a large part of the republican base is blue collar. southern..hard working....middle class.....

other than minorities,who follow race hustlers like jesse jackson and sharpton,guys that earn their living through scare tactics and racial divisiveness,the dems are in large part,a party of elitists and big government........although bush has done nothing to minimize governmental spending during his term..... this i admit....

hollywood....academia...the media....the legal profession...

the "i don`t like to get my hands dirty" crowd....