lets use a bit of unconventional thought here. If the media was liberal including this network as the right infer. is IE the right contends the networks being overtly biased to liberal, why would this ad be bad for the liberals who then watch? what does the audience need to be protected from. Surely Fox would air any hit ad of any nature that attacks liberals. Also isn't this proof the owners control even the ads on their programming. That it is not a true capitalist enterprise as many contend it is. Another fact we know move-on has not been able to have their ads on networks also. One was not allowed on the Superbowl. Also CBS would not air the Reagan movie when the right cried. Also ABC backed out of their deal to back/air and advertise M Moores movie.

The point being; 1, capitalism does not rule censorship does as there is no FCC regulation to stop a political ad like this, 2 ownership does have the final say in everything, 3, if as the right contend the MSM is liberal why would a liberal ad in their media make a difference or be stopped.

Another fact is a recent political ad that is despicable about dem Ford running was a racist ad and networks played it. The ad was eventually pulled by the sponsor, not the network. If it was a liberal network I contend that one would not have aired by the above standard. There is no way I would allow a racist ad on my network if I was stopping liberal non-racist ads.

Question for the debate, can you site examples to this level that the MSM would not air from the right. Is this a good example of we do not have a free press when we can not even buy a spot on the MSM to air our liberal opinions? Is this the good example why we need the fairness doctrine again? Why would a liberal network stop a liberal ad? And why would a partisan liberal allow a racist ad and not a liberal non-racist ad?

http://drudgereport.com/flash4.htm

NBC REFUSES ADS FOR DIXIE CHICKS MOVIE
Thu Oct 26 2006 21:21:10 ET

**Exclusive**

You have, in other media debates, accused others of being brainwashed. Yet, you seem to believe every talking point you hear on Air America or on David Brock's website. This is what some people call "irony."

You insert these one-off statements that any of us could disprove by doing our homework, but you don't provide links, context, or in this case truth. I have seen the ad that Harold ford's opponent ran. If it's racist, then you're the Pope.

And why would a partisan liberal allow a racist ad and not a liberal non-racist ad?
For those who don't know, Harold Ford apparently went to a Playboy party at the super bowl. He denied it, but it was true. I don't think it matters to most voters, but for some reason he kept denying it, and that's the problem. So, the RNC ran an ad regarding some of Ford's problems, that he accepted money from the porn industry, etc. There is a woman in the ad who says "I met you at a Playboy party." That woman is white. She looks (kinda) like a typical playmate, who, 11 months out of 12, is white.

In bizarro Democrat website-radio-talking-points-memo-land, that is "racist."

As to your point on the NBC / Dixie Chicks ad, I predict that this story is not true, so I don't have any comment at all. Drudge occasionally jumps the gun.

PS - Interesting how 'righty' Drudge broke this story, huh? What conservative media we have.

I'm not familiar enough with the Tenessee political zeitgeist to know for a fact whether or not the add was designed to stoke racial fears; but it seems pretty silly to dismiss the argument out of hand Carlitoswhey.

The concerns being raised aren't that him attending a playboy party is racist; the concern is that the ad suggests an interracial relationship to deliberately stoke some sort of vestigal racist feelings among conservative voters. I for one don't know if that was the intent or not, but having seen the ad (originally to see how Canada's name was being dragged through the mud again) I can certainly understand that interpretation.

You can also see that, were a black woman cast in that role, someone somewhere could cast that decision as being racist? I mean, it's a lose lose decision, I would say that they took the high ground, making race a non-issue in the ad. Of all things, race is not a factor in this election. The Fords are the political class in Tennessee.

For those that wish to see the ad, you can find it here.

After viewing this, I cannot believe that NBC refused to run this ad. The only possible explanation is that the network was afraid of violating this nations campaign finance laws. There were similar fears regarding Fahrenheit 9/11 2 years ago.

PS - check out the comments where the video is posted at Think Progress (my link). The fighting netroots of the Democratic party. These are not cherry-picked, these are 3 of the first 5. And you could just keep scrolling. Yeah, this is way more civilized than "hate radio."

carlitoswhey Darn I liked being called at the "pope", level..... sorry everyone else now an inside joke...

Also just a quick question, isn't the commercial a lie? Did she ever meet Herold Ford? Or is the republican party the biggest liars? Didn't ford vote for meried act? So this is what the republicans RNC thinks politics is about???? lies and race baiting..., here please explain if not race baiting.

Next her last statement please explain what that has to do with anything......... other than race baiting. "herold Call me" wink wink... you said you saw nothing wrong with the ad, then tell me what these things mean........... I am curious. Seems to mean nothing as far as politics go to me. I will reserve judgement till I hear from someone who saw nothing wrong with this ad.

I will not get into the pathetic statement of whats wrong with Canada dealing with the NK threat, as stupid and arrogant that is to bash canada that is not what this thread is about. But seems the rightys are prejudice against Canadians is my inference. I am missing the love in that prejudicial statement tooo. I assume you did not see that as an insulting prejudicial statement also because you did not comment on it.

Next even the challenger Corker asked that the RNC stop running that ad. You would assume he figured it out.

Here is an editorialized play by play with someones interpretation of the ad. I will say he went a bit overboard in one section, but he is not the RNC putting it on air. http://youtube.com/watch?v=RT8ukEUuSGE


Next back to the subject at hand, the RNC has now dropped it, the Candidate has asked it to be stopped, but it happened and was obvious to a person who is not biased to the right. You say you could not catch it. Since the thread theory is challenging the liberal media bias, we can assume it was not liberals that are running the media because liberals see this as based. Where as people of the right do not. And it was put on air. So thanks for helping prove my point via your apparent approval of it.

Yes I agree Drudge does break a lot of stories, he does have the most or many wrong too as you pointed out. Seems this one was not one of them.

As far as you posing bloggers responses I fail to see the relevance, if you want me to post right wing bloggers replies the AD will kick me off as a norm.

Now I also asked several other challenging questions for the thread, would you like to try your hand at those my friend.... I do like enjoy passion...

Harold Ford himself says it wasn't "race baiting" - is that enough for you?


can you site examples to this level that the MSM would not air from the right.
Yes I can



Is this a good example of we do not have a free press when we can not even buy a spot on the MSM to air our liberal opinions?

Again, it's a fake controversy, created by Harvey Weinstein to get free publicity for this movie. Which no one otherwise would care about or watch. 99% of America wishes that the Dixie Chicks would "shut up and sing" but they continue to think that anyone anywhere cares about their political views.

See here for an article where the NBC people gave their response. It's just like the fake controversy about the Michael Moore movie. The producers wanted to create controversy, so they told the press that their ad had been refused. Moore did the same thing when he made up a controversy that Disney wouldn't distribute his movie.

From the article.

Gee carlitoswhey just because Ford does not think it is race baiting it must not be... NOT.... Your arguments are so statistically lacking of basis.

Ok while those ads were stopped but I think those were far overboard of an ad vs for the dixie chicks ad for a movie. not even on the same scale... Also the dixie chicks one was not even a political ad, it is an ad to watch a political move....

Now as far as not taking ads of political controversy. Then why do they swamp our airwaves with the Oil industry about they are good companies, ie dr deep drilling, and boy if we do not let the oil companies drill we will have to walk everywhere. Those are certainly politically motivated as they do not attempt to get us to switch from shell to BP. Yet they are not even counted a political spending. Same with the pharma ones those are political controversy's, like we have the mobile to give 1 billion dollars of drugs to those who need them. That does not make me switch aspirin., it is again a non-counted political ad to support the corporate giveaways to the tunes of billions of dollars.

I have heard stations play anti abortion ads. Just not graphic words in nature. Yes I do not think an ad should be of a soldier with his guts hanging out or discussing it in gory details. As powerful as that image may be,. But to bring up numbers and say x died this month and for every x that dies y times X are wounded, and Z percent of those will never be able to walk again and will cost the american taxpayer another million dollars of support during his lifetime, the war costs are far larger than what meets the eye.

We have the best media money can buy... it is not a free press but an owned press.

below, you say with authority 99%, can you back that number up. as I have noted previously your stats are severely lacking from what I can see. One person opinion and now 99%. I think the majority spoke a week ago to prove your 99% figure is not even in this hemisphere.

A short while ago I started a post here entitled US 44th on the list of world free press. Some had doubts as to the legitimacy of this survey, and as to whether or not it actually meant anything. Denmark came out as a #1, maybe due to the muhammed cartoon crisis. But if we feel our public right to express ourselves being challenged, does it matter in what context if appears, and what the motives where? Shouldn´t we always shout alarm, when vital civil rights are in question.
Here in Denmark lot´s of investigations into governmental corruption was started by the press, but since a rightwing party with a huge crush on Bush came into power, fewer investigations have been commenced.
An american pendant would be, for instance, if the 9/11 report was unfullfilling and not done by an independant party, shouldn´t the press then demand for another independant inquirery? And should any attack on a given country be allowed to suppress any voice with arguments such as being unpatriotic? Have we in fact allowed our fears to govern a decrease in press freedom? The later being the whole issue surrounding the danish muhammed cartoon crisis.

carlitoswheyAfter reading you cited source it hit me something seemed strange. The date was not general election time. This looked into it and sure enough, this was a special election. And what is interesting it appears the hit ad was geared towards the other republican in the race..... But what was also interesting they said they would run the ad it just needed to be cleaned up a bit. Again from what I have now read it was the two republicans cat fighting one Firestone was close to pro choice and then the religious rightys went after him. And it seems many religious right groups did get their ads on the air about abortion. As stated you can not disparage the president on TV.

http://www2.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/01/20...california.html

http://www.h-net.org/~lss/Newsletter/jan99/gill.html



I have to thank you for your source once again... Here is how they treat a liberal ad... that picks on King George... no options just can not run it. since when was he appointed King by the networks.... geeee that liberal media.
http://www.cbc.ca/arts/music/story/2006/10...entary-ads.html


So seems your source appears to be two on the right slugging it out... so can you find some on republicans not able to voice vs a dem. After all the religious right did spend and get their ads on. Close but no cigar yet... also we have two different opinions of what went on with the chicks. Their side was they just would not allow it, whereas NBC said they would if they changed the ad. As we know the media is a bunch of liars so this guy from NBC must be lying.



I agree with your contentions. When one thinks about being 44th in freedom of the press in the world if there is one thing the USA should be number 1 in is freedom of the press. Many here in the US can not understand that or just think everyone else in the rest of the world is out to get them. To me it makes a unquestionable statement about how we do not have a liberal media. Again we do have the people that can do the investigations reporting, they just are not allowed to do it by the corporatists that own the media and pay the paychecks of the employees. Added to the advertisers have a direct effect on what is in the media. Two direct cases of you do not bite the hand that feeds ya.

I hope you post more often...

According to the latest survey on free press, denmark dropped to a staggering low 19th place, because of the cartoon buisness. This is interesting, the issue being to determine if the press was getting cencored, the very same issue now drops the DK ranking to match Hungaria, which is enveloped in corruption these days.
But another reason is as mentioned earlier, the very BTW friendly prime minister we have now, I think.
Press freedom is also about how willing a government is to give out information on it´s activities, and how much they feel they need to hide from the public. And here our PM fails in numerous cases.

Well, obviously I was using hyperbole to make a point, but now you are equating voting for Democrats with being interested in the Dixie Chicks movie? The majority spoke a week ago about the Dixie Chicks?

But fine, even accepting your ridiculous premise that my argument is "lacking in stats," let's take a look. "Shut up and Sing" has been out for 3 weeks and has grossed less than $250,000 at the box office. link Movie tickets average $6.58. link If this movie is seen by 1% of the population, it will gross $6.58 x 3,000,000 people = about $20,000,000. This will not happen. Therefore, 99% ++ of the people wish the Dixie Chicks would "shut up and sing" - in other words, 99% of Americans don't care about the Dixie Chicks' politics enough to buy a movie ticket. Proven by statistics.

By the way, I've seen this "censored ad" on TV about 5 times, plus plenty of banner ads on the internet. They ran a lot of them on liberal and conservative blogs - the ad read "shut up and post" and directed you to a fake blog about the movie.

Its not ads but the ‘twist” given to events by reporters that is biased. The king of biased news in print is NYT and on radio NPR and their affiliates. We have one in Boston (WBUR) that is so biased it is sickening. They have entire shows with one perspective. There is no “balance” because all we hear is the “liberal” view. Occasionally they allow a conservative to speak but he/she is hammered by the moderator and the other (liberal) guests.

Please remember that the “ad department” is not the same staff as the reporters and those that do editorials. THEY bring in $$$$ desperately needed – by the NYT for example that is in bad shape financially. Thus they will accept any ad that is not indecent. In other words many in the media are liars and whores at the same time. (right and left)

I don't get what you are saying here. from one side of the argument you are saying the media is desperate and will accept anything that makes money as that is their sole and only purpose. Then the title/subject is how those on the left want to advertise even a movie and the media who you say separated and will accept any money are not. How do you reconcile what I think are conflicting here.

not related to your post but the subject.... BTW heard today on AAR I think a congressperson, he is moving to put a fairness doctrine back in. Seems others in power see a discrepancy here too.. For some reason Reagan got rid of it and the media does not want it and republicans do not want it. so it must be good if the media and republicans do not like it is my take.

The media builds people up, then tears them down. It doesn't matter if you're Brittney Spears, Barack Obama, John McCain or the War on Iraq. The natural wave is to create, then destroy heroes.

For example, notice how even Fox News was relatively light on Obama coverage before he declared his run. Days after he announced he was running, it was like all the goodwill was pulled out from under him. Enter the claim, 'he went to a madrassa!!?!?'

Once upon a time John McCain graced the Rolling Stone cover. Then he became the GOP presidential forerunner for '08. It's hypothetical evidence, but can any of you imagine that happening today?

Or the War in/on/between/within/because of/over Iraq. Wolf Blitzer had the graphics department working overtime back in 2003, minting giant radar screens with dot-shaped bogeys perishing in explosion clouds, subtitle: AMERICA BACK ON THE FREEDOM MARCH WITH GUNS UNITE GET CRUNK-- or something to that banal degree.

Now, he's the number one critic on the cable news circuit.

Or Howard Dean. (Wait, a plurality of internet donations makes the governor of Vermont a presidential front runner? And wait, an over zealous scream rules you out?)

The complaint that MSM is liberal has long masked its real nature.

I think most liberals would tell you its conservative.

And most intelligent people would tell you it is run by drug-addled spider monkeys.

The Fairness Doctrine is logically unsound, and simply plays into the notion of two (and only two) monolithic parties. A notion that politicians on both sides of the aisle are only too eager to maintain. What are both sides of an issue? Only Republican and Democrat? I think not.
The Fairness Doctrine regulated radio and television until its demise in 1987. Why not print media? In terms of todays airwaves, why wouldn't cable and internet be included, if we were to be fair to all news and opinion providers. Does anybody really wish to live in that kind of world? In 1987, the FCC found that the Doctrine had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial issues of public importance.
The FCC, being an independant regulatory agency, holds the power to reinstate the Doctrine without prompting or blocking from congress. But in 1993 FCC Chairman stated eloquently: "The fairness doctrine doesn't belong in a country that's dedicated to freedom of the press and freedom of speech."

The end result of a Fairness Doctrine, which would be anything but........would be self censorship, so that any controversial views from any side would be stifled, and the public would be left with diluted, vanilla information, less educated than it already is.

DING DING DING!!!! You win. You have the most correct post. I'd like to add to it but you've driven the nail through the board and deep into a Lefty's thigh

wow I do not understand, I thought those on the right of the center to the 98 percentile believed the media was so biased to the left. So a fairness doctrine would give those on the right a chance to be heard. But seems it is the right in the congress and in the USA do not want it. Gee if the liberals were controlling the media as those on the right said this could not be the case. Also the supposed liberal media does not want it.

Did I explain this well enough? as I am a dyslexic.

can you explain to me why those on the right would not want it if as they claim the media is so lopsided liberal. Or maybe those on the right are just not telling the truth.

BTW heard another congressperson female from Michigan talk about the need for the fairness doctrine today on AAR which was a repeat of last week. Different person.

Maybe I can help.

The Right certainly believe that the media is slanted Left. (The fact that the Left think it is slanted Right and are calling for the FD is proof our media are doing a great job.) The Right, however, correctly see that the Left hold stakes in dying media. The Newspaper to be exact and suspect that the reason it is dying is because no one is bying their Left slanted junk anymore. Further the Right, reinvigorating AM radio and seeing FM crushed under the weight of Satellite and Howard Stern see no reason to fught for the sonic airwaves. This leaves only TV and movies.

On Movies while Hollywood is "Left" Right ideals sell tickets. So while they give awards to Moore, Gibson sells actual tickets. On TV well, at the moment the Right has Power - should the balance swing LLL expect to hear the cry for the FD from the Right.

I'd like to see some support for your statements. I will offer some in rebuttal.

NPR: In a study by FAIR in 2004, such a bias was nowhere to be seen at NPR.



and the New York Times? Interesting choice... like most national dailies, the majority of their columnists are center/right, though their editorial page skews slightly left of center. On reporting I have never seen any evidence of them being slanted left or right. I mean, saying that the NYT is a "leftie" paper is popular on the right, but no one really offers up anything to back it up. But, it gets repeated often enough that the gullible will eat it up. Now if you really want to read a slanted paper, try the Washington Times.



Sorry but I can't "ding" this as "most correct post."

There's a lot of misinformation about the Fairness Doctrine. I point you to this article which lays it out pretty clearly.

Specifically to a few points you raise: When you stated "The Fairness Doctrine is logically unsound, and simply plays into the notion of two (and only two) monolithic parties," that's not really how it worked.



That doesn't sound too bad to me.

Then you said, "In 1987, the FCC found that the Doctrine had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial issues of public importance."

In response:


I looked and looked but could not find a copy of that 1985 Fairness Doctrine Report. Therefore it is impossible to tell whether the FCC was being factual or merely political. Did they assert that the Doctrine had a chilling effect, or did they provide examples? Were those examples anomalies or were they the rule? We just don't know without seeing the report. I can only find references to it, not the thing itself.

However, there may be some context. In 1974, 5 years after the Red Lion ruling (which upheld the Fairness Doctrine), the FCC studied its effects and stated the doctrine to be “the single most important requirement of operation in the public interest – the sine qua non for grant of a renewal of license." It should be noted that apparently the early seventies, in the wake of Red Lion, was the period of time when the Fairness Doctrine was most heavily utilized and appealed to.

When the FCC reversed its stand in 1985, it should be duly noted that there is also a context: since Reagan's inauguration and his appointments to the FCC (notably chairman Fowler), the FCC had not enforced the Fairness Doctrine at all. Fowler was explicit in his disregard and thought it his main goal to axe it. Were the findings of the 1985 report the result of a Fairness Doctrine having a "chilling effect?" Or were they the result of a Fairness Doctrine being unenforced? And how would we find that out? No, I think the debate will have to be made over other points, not the FCC's dubious impartiality.

You said this as well: "But in 1993 FCC Chairman stated eloquently: "The fairness doctrine doesn't belong in a country that's dedicated to freedom of the press and freedom of speech.""

But that's a disingenuous quote. The Fairness Doctrine is by all means something that should be debated - in an informed manner - and I am not sure that it would be much use in todays profligate media. However, there are arguments on both sides, and the issue is anything but black-and-white. Indeed, the Fairness doctrine is most strongly supported by citizens and citizen groups, and most strongly opposed by the corporate media. The argument is over ownership of radio frequencies - long held by the public, and licensed to private companies, and both sides make strong claims about free speech. To say that supporting the Doctrine means being opposed to the First amendment, as your quote implies, is simply untrue. Supporters of the First Amendment line up on both sides of this fight.

The reason you may not understand is because you are basing your reasoning on an opinion I did not state. I have stated in the past that I believe the majority of mainstream media leans to the left in their editorializing and reporting. Not soooo biased to the left, leans to the left. I refute your assumption, because I choose to let market forces determine what is on the airwaves. It's not as if I can't find the point of view I wish to hear on any number of outlets.


I have no issue with the Fairness Doctrine being debated, I simply do not advocate the need for it, nor envision a positive impact from it.
The Fairness Doctrine was based on a premise of scarcity of media outlets, and a limited number of outlets would not adequately serve the public good without some form of regulation. That premise is quite simply outdated in today's media market.
The Doctrine was established by the FCC in 1949 to require broadcasters to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance. The Doctrine's time had passed by 1987, and remains a historical footnote today.


An interestingly non-reasoned and un-objective point of view, coming from an engineer.........

You would have to listen to WBUR to get what I am saying. From your political perspective you would “like” the coverage. Coverage when the liberal point of view gets the most air time and the “moderators” conclusions coincide with the view from the left. National coverage from Washington is better than it once was.

Date: December 14, 2005
Contact: Meg Sullivan ( msullivan@support.ucla.edu )
Phone: 310-825-1046

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.

These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.
Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.
Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.

The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.

"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."

The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.


"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.
Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664



I am saying that the sales department – that brings in the MONEY that keeps the outlet alive could care less about the politics of the advertiser.

TED Since you have posted this on this thread I will also reply to it here. got to stop what I consider propaganda.

the study you report on I have read completely before. I like their black box attempt. It was a nice try but as we say in the real world of Engineering garbage in equals garbage out. We in Engineering like to test the output of black boxes and this one does not come close. As the summery shows it is quite unrealistic to consider the Wall Street Journal somehow liberal in any respect, That Drudge is somehow close to center is a pathetic intellectually dishonorable statement. The significant fault I found in their study is they do not discuss the possibilities that the basis of their baseline could be skued in one way or another. They assume a statistical equivalent spread in dems over the spectrum as well as republicans. To not go into detail that they are even making this assumption is irresponsible work and makes their grade school paper trash. As I have contended in history we have conservative times and liberal times, and the elected officials can during any certain period shift to one side in both parties. If so their entire black box would need a new baseline, which I think it clearly is demonstrated that Drudge is just slightly to the right of center and more. thus can you find a better source to back up your point to NPR being so biased, after all they have have listed the people to the right with airtime, how is that not a reasonable way to find bias?

In regards to the sales department. Also how do you account for Rev Moons Washington Times reportedly has never made a profit. You do know it is far slanted to the right. IE isn't it evidence that propaganda is more important than profit. that the advertising departments would have taken the ads by the any group like move on.

Just an fyi I am an engineer as well and if you want to do a “study” of the black box that is the media it is quite simple. Get a stop watch and a pencil. When I refer to NPR I was not, as I said, referring to just the National coverage which I believe is relatively balanced, but rather to some of the affiliated local NPR stations and their programming. In Boston we have WBUR which is so left biased it is sickening. Programs like On Point regularly have programs where you will have 2 or 3 guests with left positions blasting away at Bush policy, the war etc and in many cases there is not even a representative of the opposing opinion. Occasionally there is a “quote” by Bush or someone that is then trashed and the “conclusions” are all left. I used to use the stop watch to time the amount of time each view had to present a case. Its so bad on WBUR you need not bother. And of course conclusions are ALWAYS left.

Try this with an NPR local station.

I read the WSJ and they ARE left on many non business social issues. You would not expect them to be far left on busuiness issues - remember "businessmen" are not all "right wing" as you might expect and the WSJ must cater to all.

And this is radio listened to by millions and paid for with public funds (in part) Rev Moon is a someone I have never heard and I am sure his “market” is small.

Debates about how left-wing this media source is, or how right-wing that commentator is, are all very well, but ultimately all such discussions are predicated on where the centre is.

Political opinions on most subjects form some kind of bell curve, with the bulk of the population somewhere in the middle. Even if the whole population veers towards one extreme of a yes/no debate (such as public opinion being in support of the death penalty for murder, for example), there are gradations and qualifications. For example, some might say the death penalty should apply for all murders, while others support it in particular circumstances only (e.g. murders of minors, police officers, those committed during the course of another crime like rape, robbery or burglary, etc.)

So you end up in a situation where being left- or right- biased depends on having an exact idea of where the middle (or, more appropriately, the median) of public opinion is. Because pollsters don't constantly take the public's temperature on every single aspect of every single issue, we invariably end up measuring media bias against positions which may themselves be biased. We measure against our own opinions, against "most of the people I know think that..." and so on. Even in scientific studies of media bias, if you take the average as "all media reportage", you're going to end up with skewed results if the whole of the media is biased in one direction.

Plus, different sections of the media have different levels of influence. If O'Hannity has an audience 50 million and PBS has one of 10 million, does O'Hannity's rightward bias count for more than PBS's leftward one?

And even taking all this into account, if the US media magically could be exactly on the median of US public opinion on every issue, outside obervers, whose publics have different views from that of the USA, could still say "the US media is biased" in one direction or another.

Bias is relative to something. Relative to the truth? Well, no. Two newspapers can cover the same story, and give the same facts, but one could treat the subject respectfully and uncritically, while another could treat it with sarcastic contempt. Bias, as a position, can only be relative to some other position, and as such can only usefully talked about if you define the position to which you're going to compare things.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, nobody has adequately defined the comparator, so discussions of bias are moot.

Having said that, and using the British media as a comparator, all the mainstream (i.e. non-internet) media in the USA are noticably biased to the right. This is only partially borne out in my experience of where the US public is; compared to us Brits, Americans tend to be more right-leaning, but not by as much as the media. So on balance, it seems to me that, compared to Britain, the US media is right-leaning.

Then again, this could just be because we're a nation of semi-socialists with a leftie media (which, compared to the USA, we are).