Nifty, Okrent, the Times' Public Editor, saying the New York Times is liberal is like Don Rumsfeld saying, "Yes, we were taking steps in 2000 to invade Iraq." I don't think he needs to give 10 examples; that's been done 100 times over by critics such as www.timeswatch.com. By the way, I read Okrent's farewell column and it was generally positive (no axes), even with its reservations about Krugman.

Brooks doesn't refute Okrent, nor even lend much to your case. He is not an editor, merely a columnist. He doesn't say, "The Times is not liberal." He doesn't even say, "Paul Krugman does not pull numbers out of his absinthe." He just says in wide-eyed manner that he was surprised to come to the Times and see they actually think about journalism. In some circles this is called a back-handed compliment.

If you really want to address whether or not the Times is liberal, don't just take Okrent's word — read these:
Don't Bother Looking For The Liberal Label
"Supreme" Labeling Imbalance
Taking The Edge off the Inflammatory Al Sharpton
Again, NYT Plays Up Flawed Factoid from Pro-PBS Liberal Senator
ACLU, Barry Lynn Not Liberal?
Pro-Life Sentiments, Pro-Abortion Headlines
NYT Ignores Durbin's "Nazis," yet Flags "Angry" Republican Remark
Skipping Embarrassing Parts of Capitol Anti-War Gathering
Times Cranks up the Reliable "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy"
Bill Moyers, Liberal? Where's the Proof?
NY Times: The Republicans' "Ideological Putsch" Against PBS
Losing Interest In Africa When Bush Helps
NY Times: The Far Right and a Racist Republican
Where's Howie? Not In The Times
Detainees Flushed Koran, But Times Hardly Notices


Eason Jordan tried to weasel out of his allegations, but even his backtracking failed, nifty. Eason said.
"such a killing is a tragic case of mistaken identity, not a case of “collateral damage.” That is the distinction I was trying to make even if I did not make it clearly at the time."

A tragic case of mistaken identity still is not "targeting"; Eason doesn't prove his original allegation and neither do you. Eason's resignation was long overdue. Rebuttal addressed.

Regarding Marc Halperin's memo, you never showed any evidence it was not authentic. Despite digging up "a few hundred wacko lefty sites," you never cite a single instance of Halperin actually issuing any sort of denial. That would be the obvious rebuttal, and its absence strongly implies the memo was accurate.


No. As I stated anyone can pull up individual examples. But examples plus a news chief who tells staffers that we don't need to be fair because the other guy's campaign (Bush) is centered on lies, now that's evidence of institutional bias.



O.K., prove that.

fontbleau,
Let’s recap. I asked for proof, from anyone, that the media have a liberal bias. This is what the debate topic question asked. I asked for any poster to answer the debate question. You responded by saying, “regarding calls to ‘prove’ media bias — the words of former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart spring to mind: ‘I know it when I see it.’”

I noticed that you didn’t use the term “liberal bias.” However, you proceeded to “prove” media bias, by citing specific examples which appear on the surface to be examples of a bias leaning only in a liberal direction. I don’t deny that media bias exists. However, my position is that:

(1) If any bias exists at all, it is logical only to make statements about individuals or media entities, not about the media as a whole. Because the media as a whole exhibit qualities which are biased every which way. Those qualities are not mostly “liberal.” There are different kinds of bias, and those biases are all over the map. Anyone claiming media bias (including you) tends to claim bias of one shade, when bias is various. This is partisan, selective, and irrational.
(2) When making statements using terms such as “liberal,” “conservative,” “media,” and “bias,” one ought to define what these terms actually mean.
(3) The only bias (I define bias here as being a predetermined agenda) which in my opinion clearly permeates a majority of the media is a bias towards sensationalism. Stories which will sell or impress are the stories which appear.
(4) Your examples were poor and do not at all (ok, perhaps they BARELY) prove that the entities you cite lean liberal in their alleged bias. In every single case it is possible to demonstrate bias at the same media entity leaning the other way. In every single case it is possible to list a majority of articles or stories which do not exhibit a clear bias. Therefore, I believe it would actually be more accurate to claim that the media are mostly (from the point of view of a pure political agenda) not biased.
(5) Your examples don’t prove the media (the whole media) have a bias (an agenda) leaning liberal (interests generally attributable to “liberals” … anti-war, government helping the poor, minority concerns, infrastructure & big government, etc). Your examples don’t begin to prove that the entire (or even most of the) media are biased toward liberal concerns. Your examples do not offer proof to back up your claim that the media’s biases are liberal.




If Okrent wants to call the Times liberal, I’m still left wondering what this means. Because he didn’t offer any evidence. Okrent seems to me to lean conservative, himself. … [gasp] … the Time’s editor … conservative … Like you, the middle would appear to be on the left to Okrent. And Okrent’s reservations about Krugman were refuted. Okrent’s reservations had no basis in fact, they seemed to be irrational political differences. It is no wonder that Okrent would make a statement like “of course it is [liberal].”

The comparison to Rumsfeld makes no sense whatsoever. Because “liberal” is a matter of perspective, that I must add, has not been defined, proven, or qualified, and a preparation for war would be a fact.

Brooks, … my case? …???... This is your case. You offer evidence about the Times in your case about the media. I’m here to refute your case. You cite these specific examples intended to show specific instance of alleged bias which supposedly prove profound “liberal media bias.” Brooks’ statement wasn’t a back-handed compliment. If anything it’s an acknowledgement that his own preconceptions had changed once he came to work at the paper. It’s a statement about his own observations, and about the level of professionalism at the Times.

Brooks’ statement blows a hole in your case. You say the Times is committed to liberal views. Brooks, a conservative employed by the Times, says that the Times is made up of liberals that are committed to being fair and balanced professionals. The only knee-jerk partisan in this picture is Okrent.

Ok, so let’s say the times leans liberal. I actually agree with you. I believe it does. However, I also believe the Times is mostly fair and factual. I also believe that the Times seeks to present a diversity of opinions, in its pursuit of fairness. That’s why you can regularly read positive personal anecdotes about George W. Bush every single week in New York Times, written by Elizabeth Bumiller, whom covers the White House. You’d be hard pressed to find this kind of positive coverage of a major, prominent lefty on a network like Fox. If you’d like to talk about media bias, in general, and you pass up the media entities which profess to be fair, but that lean the most, left or right, and go on to talk about the New York Times, then your claims are extraordinarily shrill, partisan, and unobjective. Everyone picks on the Times because it is the biggest. But views and stories presented in the Times are truly diverse.

I demonstrated to you that the Times can made to appear to go out of its way to print fallacies that tilt in a rightward direction. Still, even if (and I stress “if”) the Times happens to present more viewpoints which liberals are concerned with, this does not prove that the “media is [sic] liberal.”



Jordan made it quite clear that what he meant by “targeting,” was “being aimed at.” You call this weaseling. I call it using a poor choice of words and being the unfortunate victim of right-wing hysteria, which you willingly and willfully adopt. You add this statement: “Eason's resignation was long overdue,” but don’t qualify it. Why? It doesn't matter anyway, for the Jordan matter does not prove that the “media is [sic] liberal.”



Again, this is your case. The memo's validity is questionable. Maybe Halperin’s memo is genuine. The network also can be shown to exhibit a conservative bias, as I demonstrated.

The Halperin memo, a single issue at a single network, does not prove that the “media is [sic] liberal.” And, it’s ironic, because of all people, Halperin has pointed out instances of MSM bias, and has been praised by conservatives for it.



Gladly. In this thread, you have attempted to answer the debate question by presenting a series of mini-debates offering “proof” that a few people or entities have, from time to time, been biased in a liberal direction. This has been your way of “proving” that the entire “media is [sic] biased.”

Of course the media are biased. But the nature of the bias itself is as diverse as the supposed political agendas held by persons in the media. And, as I stated earlier, I will not make massive generalizations about the nature of the media. I believe that it is possible to disprove such widely thrown generalizations. I don’t believe it is shrewd to make them. That is why I will be quick to say that the long-held notions of bias are not true.

Like 4gold said, bias can be a failure to be objective. Bias can be motivated by a fear of lack of support by a corporate sponsor. We tend to think of bias only as a political agenda. This is the traditional, typical view and it is incomplete. There are many kinds of biases and of each kind of bias, there are spectrum of postions within each bias.

In his book, “What Liberal Media?,” Eric Alterman writes:
“…the real news story of recent years is not whether this newspaper, or that news anchor, is biased but rather to what extent the entire news industry is organized to communicate conservative views and push our politics to the right—regardless of how “liberal” any given reporter may be.”

This is a position which is rarely mentioned. If it is true, then the media can hardly be said to be “liberal.” Alterman isn’t saying that the media are conservative and not liberal. He is saying that they are both, and the reality is more complex than what most make it out to be. There is a tendency for individual reporters to be liberals and speak or write liberal viewpoints. But there has also been a tendency in recent years for the news media, as a whole, to treat Democrats and liberal figures more harshly than Conservative or Republican public figures are treated.

Don’t believe me? In the 2000 election Gore was vilified by the media. A truly liberal media would not have done this. “Gore gets gored”
Part one http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/apndx_4.htm
Part two http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/apndx_5.htm

So, to answer your question, I put forth these preceding links as evidence, that a truly “liberal media” would not have done this to the Democratic Presidential candidate in 2000. I will eagerly talk about what the media is not, but I believe that we should cautiously talk about what the media "is" [sic]. The media are not liberal.

Your "proof" regarding only about a half dozen people or entities in the media doesn't prove that the "media is [sic] biased."

As an added bonus, I put forward the following links as an additional bonus for anyone who is interested.

“Who really gets labeled?”
http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/apndx_2.htm

Media Ownership
http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/apndx_3.htm

First, nifty, please refrain from your quotes of “media is [sic] liberal.” unless you make it clear whom you’re quoting. It isn’t me because I never wrote that.

Second, you expend six paragraphs trying to show the New York Times is not liberal — despite testimony by its former public editor to the contrary, and despite Brooks failing to explicitly refute it — and then concede “Ok, so let’s say the times leans liberal. I actually agree with you. I believe it does.”

Third, you say we ought to define terms such as “liberal” and “conservative” before discussing them — then proceed to use up a great deal of bandwidth discussing them without ever defining them.

Fourth, you again try to cover for Eason by saying, “I call it using a poor choice of words” and trying to equate “targeting” with “being aimed at.” The facts, however, don’t support you. Barney Frank reported:


That's several degrees more serious than "being aimed at." Case closed.

My comment that Eason’s resignation was long overdue is supported by the earlier-mentioned case of him deliberately not reporting — for years — the extent of torture conducted by Saddam. I thought you understood that.

Fifth, you fail to show any compelling evidence the Halperin memo is not accurate. You continually state that single issues at single networks don’t prove media bias, which is true (nothing can prove bias), but they do provide evidence, which is all anyone can do.

Sixth, you cite Gore’s treatment by the media in 2000 from www.whatliberalmedia.com, not an impartial source. I’ll counter with an unbiased source about the 2004 election (which also refutes your argument that the gap is closing):


or this from Newsweek’s own Evan Thomas:
"There's one other base here: the media. Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards -- I'm talking about the establishment media, not Fox, but -- they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there's going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points."

and this about Andy Rooney Admits CBS's Hostility to Bush Drove Forged Documents Hit
"Speaking at Tufts University on Thursday night, CBS's Andy Rooney attributed the motivation behind CBS's hit on President Bush based on forged documents to the political agenda of CBS News staffers. "There's no question they wanted to run it because it was negative towards Bush," the Tufts Daily's Keith Barry quoted Rooney as revealing during his remarks."

Finally, I’ve stated several times that no one can prove media bias for the entire media because of the complexity and scope. This will never be anything more than comparing your most egregious examples against mine, theories by Eric Alterman with theories by former CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg and his book "Bias" or the impact of mostly-liberal outlets (The New York Times, CBS, Newsweek) with mostly-conservative ones (Fox).

I believe examples posted by myself, deerjerkydave (post #47) and others show more evidence of bias from the left than the right. I rest my case and leave it to others to judge.

fontbleau, I’m utterly baffled by your response. Nearly everything you’re stating here is groundless, as if you have read only half the thread.



I'm quoting the subject of this debate thread. Did you respond to the poll at the beginning? What was your answer? Did you pause at all before you eagerly chose “Yes, it's liberal?” This is the topic that we’ve been debating all along. If you didn’t know this or don’t remember, perhaps this explains everything.



of course, because I don't believe the Times is a biased newspaper. but don't put words in my mouth. we're talking about bias here....



we've been over this again and again....failing, according to you, because you will (as you've demonstrated here more than once) take someone's word without evidence, when it corroborates your beliefs, over statements that are supported with evidence or reasoning.



the editorial page is mostly liberal. I admit that. A mostly liberal editorial page which contributes a great deal to the feel of the paper is different than bias – which is your claim.



again, utterly baffled. the debate question was answered, and we all responded to it with our own answers. my statement was never challenged. I answered the poll question "other." and I made no mention of liberals or conservatives when I explained at first what kind of bias I think the media have. we have been debating your claims. and yes, you have never defined the terms. look again, I most certainly have defined what I think I am talking about when I mention "bias" and "liberal." I am guessing when I respond to what you are talking about when you speak of bias.



baffling. bizarre. you talk about so-and-so's-word-versus-so-and-so's-word and call it "facts." meanwhile, in response to nearly every example of your bits of "evidence," I've offered example after example of conservative bias at these same media entities. You consistently neglect to acknowledge those. Hello … ?



His colleagues were killed by U.S. troops. We've been over this again and again as well. You get a gold star for eagerly joining the effort to take him down, despite never having seen or heard the remarks in question.



??? Did you see the article he wrote, that I posted a link to? It was explained there.


I can tell that you’re a pretty smart guy, and I’m telling you this as a friend, because I care, seriously, you could do a lot better than drudge.com.


the examples were real. The source isn’t Alterman. Those are quotes from newspapers. they are there, for all to see. Gore was indeed "gored." Do you deny it?


this is all another case of Okrent and Rumsfeld. Apples and Oranges. C’mon. If anything, this seems to prove that an incumbent suffers the attack of a sensationalist media. You didn’t refute my point. My bottom line: A liberal media would not have done that to Gore. Case closed.


right, liberal media bias is a myth that cannot be proven. so why does anyone say the media are liberal?



and I could stay up all night and paste hundreds or even thousands of examples that "prove" a conservative bias. Would that mean I would win? But I would never do such a thing. Because such generalizations are pointless.

as you eagerly count examples of, as I’ve shown, not-so-clear evidence of supposed bias, and yet neglect to count the times that, say, a lauded journalist like Bill Kristol praises Bush’s speech even though he wrote it, just remember that, as you said so yourself, it all proves nothing. Because the next time a Democrat occupies the White House, the major networks will eagerly parrot/quote what the president’s most vehement critics will be saying, just like they did in the 90’s. that will be bias too, a bias towards sensation.

Is the media biased?

Yes.

If so, is it liberal or conservative?

Some news sources are liberal, others are conservatives, and others are other things. You cant really generalize.

If yes, prove it.

I fail to see the need to prove the obvious.

The Center for Media and Public Affairs just released a study on network news coverage of the President's first 100 days. They do this every four years. Here's what they found in this study and previous studies:

Source 1
Source 2

- President Bush in 2005: out of 250 stories 67% were negative.

Comparing President Bush's first term against Clinton's we get the following:

- President Bush in 2001: out of 619 stories 73% were negative. Total air time coverage (both good & bad) was 1,024 minutes.

- President Clinton in 1993: out of 619 stories, 59% were negative. Total air time coverage (both good & bad) was 1,438 minutes.

So does this prove media bias? It definitely does not show a comprehensive bias spanning all political subjects. But it does at least demonstrate that network news in this instance was modestly harder on President Bush than Clinton and devoted significantly larger amounts of time to their stories on Clinton over Bush.

This is interesting, but it is reaching to draw these kinds of conclusions from this sort of study.

Clinton's ratings were higher than Bush's. Therefore, with more people saying negative things about the president, coverage of those statements naturally makes more negative stories. How is positive/negative a measure of balance? Were the stories factual? A measure of positive/negative doesn't reveal very much. Who makes that determination? A conservative? What was the criteria?

Let's say, for example, Bill Clinton gets on TV and wags his finger at the nation. If 50% of stories about it are positive, is that "balanced" coverage? What if no one had anything good to say about it? I believe that in fact, coverage would have to be seriously "biased" in order to dig up a 50/50 positive-negative split. These percentages seem to me to go along with public opinion, for the most part.

Regarding the number of minutes spent on stories, I'd like to know if ALL stories in the media are getting shorter. And didn't Clinton seek the media more?

Robert Lichter is paid by one of the networks he studies. And I'll give you a hint, it ain't CNN.

If you want to see an example bias and spin, look no further than the Center for Media and Public Affairs
Center for Media and Public Affairs

How does that prove anything? Perhaps Bush made more decisions deserving of negative coverage in his first 100 days than Clinton did. Without a whole lot more detail on what was going on during that time period these statistics are meaningless unless you are trying to use them to reinforce a preconceived notion.

Also, the time difference makes sense as well. Why? Because Bush refuses to give press conferences or appear on TV - that is a well known fact. A lot of that additional 400 minutes was probably press coverage of speaking events Clinton did.

Finally, what other extraordinary event could have been going on during Bush's first 100 days... hmmm... well he did "win" a highly disputed election and perhaps there was still coverage of that going on. The media certainly didn't do the liberals any favors as far as that goes by going along with the completely arbitrary result prediction by FoxNews.

The press does not exist to be a cheerleader for the Whitehouse. The press is supposed to critically examine the information coming from the Whitehouse and give the public the straight story. They don't always achieve that, but they definitely aren't there to play cheerleader to the President.

Trying to prove that the press is liberal is like trying to prove that the sky is blue.

It's self evident.

Any objective study that has been performed has demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the vast majority of the "mainstream" media is liberally biased.

How the media vote

Their actions speak louder than their denials. Just look at who the people in the media vote for. You can't tell me that their own personal political beliefs don't color their attitudes and what they report.

What's worse is that the "dean of the WH press corps" (no pun intended) is a rabid partisan lefty and can't be judged to be "objective" by any rational measure.

Helen Thomas

She's the moral equivalent of Rush Limbaugh sitting in every Bill Clinton press conference and hammering away with loaded questions. Yet this woman (and many others like her) call themselves "journalists"? It's absurd.

What's worse is the revolving door between the democrat party and the "mainstream media". A few examples:

ABC TV: George Stephanopoulus, ex Clinton administration press secretary.
NBC TV: Tim Russert, former congressional staffer to Sen. Moynihan (D-NY)
CNBC TV: Chris Matthews, former congressional staffer to Rep Tip O'Neill (D-MA)
NPR; Nina Totenberg, worked in lockstep with democrat activists trying to defeat USSC nominee Clarence Thomas.

Media Research Center


What's surprising to me is that anyone even bothers to debate this anymore. The mainstream media is liberal and has been for a long time.

Talk radio and alternative internet media outlets were created as a counterweight to the NY Times, Washington Post, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, etc. Fox is middle of the road but is considered "right wing" by the lefties at the other networks because they even bother to represent the conservative viewpoint in ways that are routinely shut out by the rest.

Come on CJ, I think you know better than that.

Check out this site, it gives a more objective (nearly non-partisan) idea of what might've happened in this case.
http://www.journalism.org/resources/resear...ays/default.asp

Among many parts of the story in that link, here's one great quote;
In print, Bush had a much harder time than Clinton on the opinion pages. Half of all editorials have been critical of him, while only 20% have been positive. While these results come from the New York Times and Washington Post, reputedly liberal papers, the problem was roughly the same on the op-ed pages, where four-in-ten stories were critical and only 16% positive.

Clinton fared much better. Only two-in-ten editorials were plainly negative while more than 40% were positive. His op-ed pieces were more evenly mixed, with negative stories slightly outweighing positive (35% to 30%).


This thread is about the "media" in general, isn't it? ?

The link also provides:
Bush Clinton
Positive 22% 27%
Neutral 49% 44%
Negative 28% 28%
Satire 1% 1%
--------------------------

"The study examined coverage over the first 60 days of the presidency beginning January 21, the day after the inauguration, through March 21. In all, the study examined 333 stories about Bush and 566 about Clinton. Princeton Survey Research Associates consulted on the project design and statistical analysis. "

I also like this quote:
As a whole, the press has depicted Bush as a skillful manager, more comfortable as an insider than a man of the people, who is stubbornly pursuing a sincere, conservative ideological agenda even if it is controversial.

By contrast, a much larger percentage of the coverage of Clinton depicted him as a politician of the people whose actions and policies were often highly calculated but also more popular.

The whole idea is why??? How much do people really know about either administration? Frankly, the answer is largely based upon what they get off the 7-8:00 news, from friends, or out of the paper- isn't it?

So, to wrap up this thought... it's obvious that the media can portray someone in whatever light they so choose, regardless of the media outlet. I like the analogy of a picture. 10 people can take a picture of a person, at different times and from different angles, with different lighting. All 10 pictures will look slightly different.

The media in America seemingly chooses (in my opinion) to portray this administration, along with many other conservative causes as inept, zealot, illogical, or uneducated and ignorant. I think this trend began with FDR and Alger Hiss, and hasn't changed much since. Consider the "McCarthy" syndrome, or Whitaker Chambers and the Pumpkin Papers. Poor Mr Chambers was labeled as an outcast publicly for outing a known Communist... and many people didn't even believe it until the '95 Soviet Cables were brought forth. Why? Because all media chooses what to broadcast and what not to...

ok, but just what do you mean by "liberal," and what do you mean by "bias"? I'd like to address your remarks, but first I'd like to know what you are stating.



who are "they?" and how is this relevant? your statement about bias seems to be levelled at the media's output, the media's content. why not address that content? pointing to whom "they" vote for ... if you were going to be honest, or accurate, why not claim that the mainstream press are mostly democrats? this is a leap.



one person? and...?



I will gladly debate whether or not anyone of these people portray "liberal bias" ... if you tell me what you mean by the term, and I happen to disagree with you.



the mainstream media's output isn't 100% liberal. the mainstream media's output isn't even half liberal. let me know what you mean by "liberal" and "bias," and let's look at the media, as a whole, not just 4 or 5 people. I'd like to demonstrate why the media aren't liberal. by liberal, I am thinking of a definition that would describe a liberal as someone whom is sympathetic to government-funded social programs, corporate regulation, war as a last resort, workers over owners, populism, etc. what do you mean by liberal?

lol, good point. However, I have seen the CMPA bash on Fox News for leaning to the right.

As I stated, and I agree, the info I presented is far from conclusive by itself. Perhaps the example I gave was just an outlier as Cube Jockey suggested. But if we can show with some consistency that the mainstream media props up the Democrat over the Republican then we can approximate the possible fact that they are biased to the left.

So here's another example. Another study by CMPA found that ABC, NBC, and CBS evening news favored both Gore over Bush and Kerry over Bush in their respective elections. Coverage for Gore was 48% positive compared to 33% for Bush. Coverage for Kerry was 38% positive compared to 29% for Bush. Now if you couple this info with the data aevans176 just pointed out, a clear almost systematic pattern is beginning to emerge.

Source

niftydrifty, I think the best way to define liberal or conservative for this debate is along political party lines. Yes not all Democrats are liberal, but the party does lean to the left. Yes not all Republicans are conservative, but the party does lean to the right. If mainstream media favors one party over another, it ultimately suggests an underlying propensity towards one ideology over another.

Opinion pages and op-eds? Is that what you are going on about? Well they are by definition opinions aevans and they are going to have a slant one way or the other (hate to break that to you).

However I don't think we are talking about op-eds here (or we shouldn't be anyway), we are talking about the news coverage.

If people are citing stats which include op-ed coverage then I would find that study to be highly suspect.

CJ, you sincerely must've not read the article or my post.

The point of the whole article is that there media treated the presidents differently, and deliniated why in their terms. It was a Princeton Survey Research Associates consulted study...

and umm... the name of the thread is "Is the Media Biased??"
Hate to tell ya, but my post, as well as the link, include objective arguments that discuss this very topic.

Need the link again?
http://www.journalism.org/resources/resear...ays/default.asp

The media bias fell on the shoulders of network news as well as print media, which is very effective as well.

Your post once mentioned bad decisions in the first 100 days??? Were you discussing Clinton's? (like gays in the military and speculative appointments, etc?)
Come on... GW is no republican posterchild in my eyes, but he couldn't possibly be as bad/ and surely not worse than Mr. Clinton.

The link is a study consulted by Princeton Survey Research Associates (hardly conservative) on this very matter. It says in their words "As a whole, the press has depicted Bush as a skillful manager, more comfortable as an insider than a man of the people, who is stubbornly pursuing a sincere, conservative ideological agenda even if it is controversial"

Basically, what I take from that is that the media was attempting to show GW as an elitist that was cramming an ideological agenda down the throats of Americans. Am I correct? ...

Then about Clinton the study said "By contrast, a much larger percentage of the coverage of Clinton depicted him as a politician of the people whose actions and policies were often highly calculated but also more popular."

More popular to whom? Ohhhh.... the media of course.

Is the media biased? yes

If so, is it liberal or conservative? rich right

If yes, prove it.

Several proposed axioms

1, Follow the money (why do defense contractor related companies own the majority of the media) if the media was so liberal they would discuss this issue. http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2005/narrat...p?cat=5&media=1
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/p....html?th&emc=th

2, You don’t bite the hand that feeds ya (who makes the final decisions) if the media was so liberal they would discuss this issue. http://adage.com/paypoints/buyArticle.cms/...sId=45132&auth=
http://www.sdimc.org/en/2002/05/1411.shtml Fear & Favor in the Newsroom (1996) 3, In the world, the US press for freedom is ranked 22 in 2004. If a free press is considered the foundation to a free society as our constitutions points out why is the supposed greatest free nation of the world not number 1, if there is any single area we want to be number one this should be one. if the media was so liberal they would discuss this issue.
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11715
http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=28527

4, control of the “distribution of the word” is mind control. Is it effective? without a free good press we also have market factors controlling us. Companies/corporations do not waste of millions of dollars advertising in the media to get people to look favorable on their company or product do they. Thus repetition and control of the message is important. http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=8247
Keep Sinclair's Bias Off The Local News
http://www.worldpress.org/Americas/2086.cfm

5, free lunch, corporate handouts, , this land is our land and these airwaves are ours..
Time to make the radio and TV media pay for our airwave usage, none of this free handout stuff. Just as we have companies run our concessions in national parks it is time for the media to bid on a yearly fee for our airwaves or shut down, fairness doctrine. A bit of logic here, if the media is so liberal why would a republican Reagan eliminate the fairness doctrine. If the media was liberal then he would by the doctrines definition get to put his side out on each instance. Simple he eliminated the fairness doctrine because the media is right wing owned and controlled. http://www.twf.org/News/Y1997/Fairness.html
7, No media bias would be complete without an understanding of where the media gets the majority of their information/stories. The reporting agencies, Reuters, AP and so on, who owns these? Why isn’t the ownership common knowledge, if the media was so liberal they would discuss this issue. On typical news broadcasts where Rather may have had in his 1 hour show removing weather, sports, celebrity gossip and so on Dan may have been reading the teleprompter for a total less commercials 12-20 minutes. Now how often does he get to pick what goes on the teleprompter? I have heard Rev Sun Young Moon (yep the guy that had pan handlers in airports) who owns the right wing paper the Washington Times also owns one of the reporting agencies. And have heard the Saudis also did own a major interest in one. So do all owners of the source of the majority of reported events are they owned by the right wing?
8, radio talk shows-news is basically pure commentary, these shows are very politically partisan. The republicans have this by a stronghold. Paul Harvey by the largest. Rush, Dr Laura, Ollie, G Gordon, Bob Brinker, Savage, Rev Billy Gram, Pat Roberston, M Medved, Alan Keys and so on. My challenge to the republicans is name me all the liberals on the radio who have political talk shows of 1 hour or more that have been on a national forum for more than one year. Ask Disney why it finds nostalgia for http://sandiego.indymedia.org/en/2005/07/109574.shtml9, how many reporters work for intelligence agencies? We will never know but we know they do. Even my father after he left the military was approached by the CIA to be an undercover agent, he has several books written. It is rumored many of US foreign based reporters are agents of the CIA.
10, from the thread some republicans have cited a few programs that were liberal biased and this is statistically out of context, to say that here Dan Rather did these two shows in 40 years you do not like is just not valid. After all I could say every time any show was about Monica that the entire show was right wing. And boy your two instances about Dan would be overcome by the 200 even he reported on her.
11, propaganda, does it work? Did the USA military broadcast radio free America all over the world, do they do this to waist tax payers money? No they know control of the delivery system is vital to national interests. Why do you think the CIA just set up a Arab TV network next to Washington DC for an estimated 62 million dollars. Is this because they realize that he who controls the delivery system controls the message. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1442126,00.html
12, In closing here we have a very biased source who said :
http://www.ndu.edu/icaf/industry/IS2001/newsmedia.htm

I will do a little more backing up of the above in a second post if needed. I will explain now that I am dyslexic, so following my points takes a bit of thought. I refuse to let this silence me.

to explain my axiom 2, you don't bite the hand that feeds ya better.

there is a prevalent saying in many industries, you do not bite the hand that feeds ya. That has two meanings. First you do not insult your advertisers. I.E. you run negative shows on your advertisers and they take their business elsewhere. And you do as the owner wants you to or you get fired.


http://adage.com/paypoints/buyArticle.cms/...sId=45132&auth=

My personal estimate is that 90+% of the fortune 1000 companies (advertisers) are righty owned.

Second part to the don’t bite the hand that feeds ya is the ownership, the owner is KING.. I don’t know about you but when I worked for others if my boss told me I could not research something or do something it against his wishes. It was his/their way or highway by the time everything was said and done.

Media control 101 (this was all information from a Canadian documentary aired on a Canadian TV station). American TV would not air this like they would not air Michael Moore’s documentary, and many more examples. Documentaries, even the Reagan one had to be moved of the networks..


At the Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC) a liberal was hired to be the editor because he was a award winning journalist. He could not find a job after words, just because he attacked a local business entity coke (whom was also a personal friend of the paper owner). He was addressing among other things Cokes activities around the world and he wanted to run some liberal leaning issues.. He could not find a job even though he was an award winning journalist after he did this. You don’t bite the hands of the owners friends either.

The second example of this documentary an award winning journalist was hired by a NY concern, they decided they were going to write about a Nuclear power plant being built, reported dug and found severe overcharging glutting ultimately the tax payer and other issues with the location and so on. The owner of this concern used their back door connections to stop this reporter and this award winning reporter was essential assigned children’s books to write about i.e. fired.. Again not because what they were writing was wrong just because the corporate powers do not like the truth or other opinions out.
http://www.sdimc.org/en/2002/05/1411.shtml

Next, here is an example of what rightys do with their money in the media, vs. stopping hunger around the world. He aimed at media control so actually shows several principles here. This righty funded with over 380 million dollars media control for the republican party. Do you think he hired any liberals in his companies? EVER…
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/p....html?th&emc=th

Goals Reached, Donor on Right Closes Up Shop

By JASON DePARLE
Published: May 29, 2005

Long time White House correspondent Helen Thomas demonstrated her lack of bias today, according to The Hill via the Drudge Report. Several have already noted, the press corps covering the White House voted Kerry / Gore at something like 75 - 80%.


And if Cheney ran and won, I'm sure that Ms. Thomas' dispatches from the White House would be fair and balanced as always. Because she's a professional journalist.

Suddenly the idea of a Cheney run for President in 2008 doesn't seem like such a bad idea.

In defense though of the liberal media, and there is a liberal bias there, even the most die hard liberals in the media will admit that Helen Thomas is journalism's version of the crazy old aunt in the attic.

This is funny. I mean, I don't much respect Helen Thomas. Yet her dislike of Cheney isn't a demonstration of bias. This is a common logical mistake made when discussing these things. If the media display a bias in their coverage, an agenda, why not discuss the content of the media's coverage? If Helen Thomas dislikes Cheney, and if most media persons vote for Democrats, that is not evidence of bias. I could attend a Democratic party fundraiser and still be a fair reporter.



Actually they probably wouldn't be. Wait, are you being sarcastic? If, or when, that happens, you could document evidence of that bias, when it occurs. If anyone wants to throw around claims of bias, that's what they should be doing. Drudge gets it wrong when he claims that Thomas "demonstrated" something, other than dislike or disdain for Cheney, when she made her nutjob promise.



You haven't proven that Thomas is crazy, or that the media are liberal! I will agree that Thomas is a nutcase, because I've seen it myself. I can agree with that. But if you want to claim the media have a liberal bias, you're going to have to prove it. That's what this thread is for.

By the way, what is liberal? Who are the media? What is meant by "bias"? Where is "there"?

remember was it only about 22% of all americans voted for Bush.


If possible can you site your source, that would be interesting to see if it had more details. I have in the past seen breakdowns that showed the reporters themselves said they were liberals 34% in the national media.

http://usconservatives.about.com/od/mediaw...iberalmedia.htm

Also there is a major difference, can a reporter be objective? Can a lawyer or judge be objective? I believe Ted Koppel has always been a republican, and even though he is one most rightys would have said he is a liberal. I say he was just a good journalist, he just was not a Hannity. Same for the democrats, they try to be too objective, they need to go for the juggler like Hannity, O'Riely, et al do. Can you give me any liberal as politically rude as the fore mentioned on everyday for a political show.

By the way has anyone counted how many more questions the escort service guy (was he ever investigated for prostitution from his web site,) anyway how many questions did he get (with his weekend(matchbox) journalism experience) vs Helen, and as others I am not a fan of Helen T's. Actually not a fan of any in the washington press corps. You should see the questions I would have for Bush, no softball questions like gannon.

Bush received over 62 million votes. 62 / 295MM people = "only" 21% of the American public. So Kerry got 19 or 20%. I'm not sure what the significance of this is, other than we should eliminate voter registration and age limits. Or, maybe we should just let the White House Press Corps vote for us, since they are smarter?

Here is one source I'm citing. It's a 40-year pattern of the press voting more liberal than the American public.


Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, Chris Matthews, Lawrence O'Donnell...

I got yer media bias right here!

PHILADELPHIA, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- The Philadelphia Citizens Crime Commission, with the help of a Philadelphia blogger, have launched a reward fund for information leading to Latoyia Figueroa, a 24-year-old pregnant mother of one who has been missing since July 18.

Figueroa went to a doctor's appointment with a male friend on that afternoon, police said, but did not show up to retrieve her 7-year-old daughter from day care later that day.

Stephanie Stephenson, a relative who raised Figueroa after her mother was killed when she was a toddler, told CNN that Figueroa, five months pregnant, left the friend's house in west Philadelphia "and disappeared."

Her cell phone -- a constant companion -- has gone quiet for the nine days she has been missing, and her bank has recorded no transactions.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/07/27/Philadelphia.missing/

The case of Latoyia Figueroa may still be too new to have drawn national attention (and media saturation coverage) as the cases of Natalee Holloway, Jennifer "The Runaway Bride" Wilbanks, Laci Peterson but it just might be a case of something else and it's the bloggers that have picked up on what that is:

Any wonder why we haven't heard about her in the news? It's not her age. At 24, she's younger than Jennifer Wilbanks, "the runaway bride," who is 32. It's not that she's unsympathetic. She has a 7-year-old daughter and she is five months pregnant. And it's not that she's done anything wrong. Remember, Jennifer Wilbanks violated the law by making false statements to the police. But she still got plenty of news coverage even afterwards.

But this woman's name is not Natalee Holloway or Jennifer Wilbanks. It's Latoyia Figueroa. And she's got one big strike against her. She's not white.

Do a Google News search of Natalee Holloway and you will find 5,900 news articles about the young woman missing in Aruba. Look for Jennifer Wilbanks and you will find more than 300 articles about the runaway bride. But look for Latoyia Figueroa and you will find just a handful of local news stories in Philadelphia.

So why do we hear about the Natalees and Jennifers but not about the Latoyias? And who decides which stories are newsworthy and which are not?

The truth is there are lots of missing women out there. I found almost 10,000 stories on missing women from Google News. Many of them we've never heard of. Some of them are white. Some are Asian. Some are older. But few of them are famous. Few of them make it to CNN, the New York Times and USA Today.

http://www.keithboykin.com/arch/001408.html

Richard Blair runs the All-Spin Zone and he sent a open letter to CNN's Nancy Grace asking where's the coverage of Latoyia's disappearance.

Latoyia Figueroa is still missing after 8 days. And as tragic as the Natalee Holloway case might be, Natalee doesn't have a seven year old child wondering where she is, nor was Natalee (to the best of our knowledge) 5 months pregnant.

Here's an overview of the important details in this “missing woman” case:

1) Latoyia (we should only use her first name) is not white.
2) She does not have blonde hair.
3) She was not scheduled to get married last weekend.
4) She's from West Philadelphia.
5) There may actually be a lead or two in her case.
6) HER UNBORN BABY, HER UNBORN BABY, HER UNBORN BABY.
7) To the best of our knowledge, no one from Texas has yet offered to bring in cadaver dogs to search for Latoyia, nor have forensic dive teams volunteered to scour the Schuylkill or Delaware rivers.
8 ) Also to the best of our knowledge, the FBI hasn't been requested to participate in the investigation (even though Philly actually is in the US of A), nor have any DNA samples been rushed to Washington, DC.
9) HER UNBORN BABY, HER UNBORN BABY, HER UNBORN BABY

http://allspinzone.com/blog/index.php?itemid=940

Google the words "missing woman" and you will get sick at all the missing women listed. It's staggering.

So why do some missing women seem to matter more than others?

Maybe because the predominantly White media doesn't care about the non-White missing women?

Yes, this is absolutely true, and quite disgusting. But, wait! It's much, much worse than that. I have a friend, who used to work these types of cases in the FBI. He witnessed this first hand, including one case where the ball was essentially dropped (SOP's not followed, normal manpower not assigned, leads not followed, etc) in a kidnapping where the little girl was later found dead. He raised a stink with his superiors, and was essentially outcast...even to the point of being assigned undercover operations that would likely get him killed (black guy in a white area, etc). Why? Because the FBI (and police, etc) are going to put resources to those cases that get press. If you don't solve a case no one knows about, are you going to be criticized? Of course not. But if it's all over the evening news every night, you're going to see manpower thrown at the problem, even if its just to create the appearance of effort. What's the problem with this? Ever wonder how many other cases aren't being worked when you see hundreds of investigators working the one case you see on the news? Not a pretty picture, is it?

Even among white people, it's all a matter of what will likely get sensationalized. See any big deal made of any missing ugly, poor white women? I didn't think so. Who cares about that

Also, NT, I am curious what you think would happen if someone such as yourself made an issue of this internally in the media. I suspect you would be castigated much as Bernard Goldberg was....sensastionalizing the 'right' stories is how the media generates demand for its product. I am quite sure they wouldn't look kindly on someone upsetting the apple cart.

Consumers of course bear ultimate blame for this issue. It wouldn't be out there if we were fascinated by it. The media isn't stupid...they don't put out stories no one is interested in. You think this problem would exist if no one paid so much attention to these cases that get sensationalized?

Isn't our system wonderful?

Greta has been covering this story since at least last Friday, 29July. Here is a link to one of the articles about it on her On the Record website. She spent about 15 minutes of her program on the story, including an interview with Latoyia's father on Friday night. Since that program, other FOX News programs have continued with updates on the story.

Thank you Hobbes and Aquilla for both your input and taking my post seriously. The scope of what constitutes "media bias" goes beyond whether or not the media is liberal or conservative or a watchdog or a lapdog.

Hobbes one of the biggest myths about the media is how liberal it supposedly is. Maybe it is when it comes to bashing conservatives, but when it comes in hiring, promoting, retaining and coveing people of color the newsrooms of the "liberal" press do an awfully dreadful job.

The point is Bush did not receive a majority of americans support,(side issue he claims he has some sort of mandate) the media is owned by the rightys to turn off americans from voting with their manipulation of what they put on. Do you think any liberal that would be in the media would try to keep voting numbers low, if they were politically motivated/partisan? Do you agree the more people that vote the better it is for democrats?



Do moderates or republicans vote for democrats. Yes, in fact I have three friends that always through their life voted for republicans and the last election for the first time in their lives did not vote for Bush. That does not mean they are liberals. Again it also has to do with the poll question I thought it was very telling your cited source said " Of those who say they voted for major party candidates", is it possible that this is not a scientific poll sampling? Is it possible as the republicans claim they do not participate in polls like the exit polls? Also I posted a present stat. at the 34% said what they actually are, now today not 40 years ago.. I do not think how during Nixons time when the media knew how corrupt he was is relevant to todays debate. And again are you saying reporters can not be fair or moderates not partisans?, can judges be fair? I believe partisan ones can not be fair, and of the partisan ones the majority are from the far right, I will list some partisan ones who have been there a long time below.

Again the one I posted is more on target, not how they voted but what they considered themselves.

Also if the media was so liberal why would we have heard so much about Clintons personal life? As you may be aware, us liberals would have covered it one week possibly a second week and that is it. not 8 10 years... How do you rationalize this point. IF THE MEDIA IS SO LIBERAL...



Randi(who I will say is a overt partisan liberal), the people I have debated say AAR is not national and not major listnership, radio power is not strong in many markets so it does not count in my book yet... When they have 600 stations or half I will consider them a major. I have never heard Mike Malloy, but same thing I can not get him on the radio or even on satellite. Chris Matthews, I as a liberal can say he is no partisan liberal, can not stand him because he stands on either side of the fence. Lawrence O'Donnell, is he on everyday with his own show? I did a search and could not find his own show.

So lets compare lists of overt partisans that have been on the national media for more than 2 years and are VERY overt partisan with their own shows. Rush, Mike wiener savage, G Gorden Liddy, Ollie North, O’Reilly, Hanity, McLauflin, Paul Harvey, Dr. Laura, JC watts, Mike Reagan, Jack Kafferty, Paula Zahn, Lou Dobbs, Larry King, Rev Billy Gram, Rev Pat Robertson, Rev Jim and Tammy Faye Baker convicted, Bob Jones with university, Numerous religious stations, Bill Kristol, Dennis Miller, Ted Koppel nightline (registered republican for many years) Bill Bennett, Glen Beck, Laura Ingram, Michael Medved, Matt Drudge, Bob Brinker, John Batchelor, Mark Levine, Tim Rusert, Brian Williams, Lou Rukeyser , Don Imas, John Mathews, Armstrong Williams, Neil Boortz, Mike Galiger, Bret Hume, Howie Carr, Joe Scarburo, Bob Dornon, Alan Keys, Bob Novak, Tucker Carlson, Ann Coulter, Marilin Madilan, George Will, Buchanan both pat and Bay, Bill Schneider, Steve Forbes, William Buckley

I am sure I am missing some from the list, can you name many from the left that are as politically as partisan as any of the above who have been on the air in the national market for 20 years with shows that are political only for over an hour that are on, 15 years, 10 years, 5 years?

Also there is another debate thread "Media Muzzled?" that I address many of the media biased issues. IE advertising and ownership issues and how they are more or the guiding control method of bias in the media.

Our media can at times be a little too color-blind though, can't it?

Example - This Washington Post article about robbery suspects at large in which the Washington Post neglected to mention their race.



Why would they not want the public to know the race of four armed and dangerous criminals who were suspected in a rash of robberies?

The original news article reported that the victims were "surprised" Perhaps people were more likely to be surprised because their local news hadn't deemed it important to let them know to be on the lookout for 4 black guys (one with cornrows) in a tan car on a robbery spree?

But, the Post has high standards to uphold:


You can see this coming, can't you?

Post article on John Roberts
Ah yes, race is of course "clearly relevant" to someone being an "ideologically close fit" with his colleagues.
Is the media biased?
If so, is it liberal or conservative?
If yes, prove it.

The (liberal) Washington Post is more concerned with portraying John Roberts as a white guy ideologue among fellow white guy ideologues than it is informing the public the most obvious description of armed felons on the loose. If these two stories aren't an example of PC / liberal bias, what is?

Just this morning on my local NPR news, I heard midwestern Senators' reactions to the John Bolton recess appointment. I was informed that Senator Obama was disappointed, that Senator Russ Feingold was disappointed, but that Republican Senator Dick Lugar was expressing his support. Well, thanks. The labeling of Republican / Conservative politicians and advocates, and converse non-labeling of Democratics and liberals is so rampant no one even notices anymore.

62 million votes is the Most. Votes. Ever. Cast. for a presidential candidate. What part of this are you not getting? Should we allow 3 year olds and non-citizens to vote so that we can somehow get a candidate with more than 150 million votes? Maybe we should let other countries vote for our president too? How about this -



Here are some of the rightys that endorsed John Kerry in a dastardly scheme to suppress the vote.
Akron Beacon Journal, Albany Times Union, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Boston Globe, Boston Herald, Boston Herald, Boston Phoenix, Cleveland Plain Dealer, New York Daily News, New York Times, Newsday, Portsmouth Herald, San Bernardino Daily Sun, San Francisco Chronicle, Santa Fe New Mexican, St. Paul Pioneer Press, The Detroit Free Press, The Philadelphia Inquirer, The Baltimore Sun, The Los Angeles Daily News...
Let's see ... record voter turnout, second term for Bush ... I guess I'll say "no" to this.

My source cited many, many studies over many, many years, most of which were conducted by major publications and surveyed hundreds of journalists. You are citing one question in one of the polls. It's a fact - the media vote liberal / Democrat overwhelmingly. They voted 5 to one for Mondale over Reagan for God's sake. If you're going to seriously make a case, first admit this fact, then convince us that doesn't affect their reporting.

Yes, by all means. Let's ask journalists if they consider themselves liberal, moderate or conservative. That's the absolute best standard. Let's ask the very people that are re-defining "moderate" to mean "liberal" how they affiliate themselves. That is indeed a much better standard than measuring how they actually vote. Try again.

A good read on this is &q