Full Version: CNN
As a European, I don't know much about America's media, but I recently heard CNN described as a 'Pinko Propoganda Channel' on another board.
Does CNN have a left wing bias, or was the poster in question talking out of his behind?
Does CNN have a left wing bias, or was the poster in question talking out of his behind?
JonBon,
There is a widely held (and in my opinion, correct) belief that a majority of large media outlets in the US have a decidedly liberal slant. Whether it is conscious or not is debatable, but there are numerous accounts of unbalanced coverage in this country. I suggest you go to bn.com and buy "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News" by Bernard Goldberg.
Hope this is of some help.
There is a widely held (and in my opinion, correct) belief that a majority of large media outlets in the US have a decidedly liberal slant. Whether it is conscious or not is debatable, but there are numerous accounts of unbalanced coverage in this country. I suggest you go to bn.com and buy "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News" by Bernard Goldberg.
Hope this is of some help.
My very subjective impressions:
Over here we used to call it the "Clinton News Network" if that answers your question. Ted Turner is himself pretty far left, about even with his wife, Hanoi Jane Fonda, and he does let his own opinions and his friendship with Bill Clinton influence his network's slant.
Fox is a little to the conservative side, but IMO basically "fair and balanced" as they claim.
MSNBC (the cable version) is like a liberal version of Fox -- a little to the left, but basically "fair and balanced."
Even CNN isn't as badly biased as the broadcast networks. Rather, Jennings, Brokaw are all so insularly liberal they don't even recognize that they are - they think its the only reasonable mainstream position and if you're at all to their right, you're a dangerous extremist.
Over here we used to call it the "Clinton News Network" if that answers your question. Ted Turner is himself pretty far left, about even with his wife, Hanoi Jane Fonda, and he does let his own opinions and his friendship with Bill Clinton influence his network's slant.
Fox is a little to the conservative side, but IMO basically "fair and balanced" as they claim.
MSNBC (the cable version) is like a liberal version of Fox -- a little to the left, but basically "fair and balanced."
Even CNN isn't as badly biased as the broadcast networks. Rather, Jennings, Brokaw are all so insularly liberal they don't even recognize that they are - they think its the only reasonable mainstream position and if you're at all to their right, you're a dangerous extremist.
JonBon,
It seems a lot of conservatives in this country think someone is out to get them. A quote from Patrick J. Buchanan's "The Death of the West," © 2002:
“In half a lifetime, many Americans have seen their God dethroned, their heroes defiled, their culture polluted, their values assaulted, their country invaded, and themselves demonized as extremists and bigots for holding on to beliefs Americans have held for generations” (Buchanan, p. 5).
So you have conservatives thinking Ted Turner's CNN is liberal, while liberals think Ruppert Murdoc's Fox is conservative. In all actuality, both are commercial, IMO. They both are designed to sell product.
I don't watch either news outlet. Give me The Daily Show on Comedy Central any old time
Seriously, PBS and NPR are primary sources of news for me. Then there's the conservative Gazette and the liberal Denver Post, through the Internet--plus various newspapers here and there.
I like variety.
It seems a lot of conservatives in this country think someone is out to get them. A quote from Patrick J. Buchanan's "The Death of the West," © 2002:
“In half a lifetime, many Americans have seen their God dethroned, their heroes defiled, their culture polluted, their values assaulted, their country invaded, and themselves demonized as extremists and bigots for holding on to beliefs Americans have held for generations” (Buchanan, p. 5).
So you have conservatives thinking Ted Turner's CNN is liberal, while liberals think Ruppert Murdoc's Fox is conservative. In all actuality, both are commercial, IMO. They both are designed to sell product.
I don't watch either news outlet. Give me The Daily Show on Comedy Central any old time
Seriously, PBS and NPR are primary sources of news for me. Then there's the conservative Gazette and the liberal Denver Post, through the Internet--plus various newspapers here and there.
I like variety.
QUOTE(Izdaari @ Mar 12 2003, 08:21 PM)
My very subjective impressions:
Over here we used to call it the "Clinton News Network" if that answers your question. Ted Turner is himself pretty far left, about even with his wife, Hanoi Jane Fonda, and he does let his own opinions and his friendship with Bill Clinton influence his network's slant.
Fox is a little to the conservative side, but IMO basically "fair and balanced" as they claim.
MSNBC (the cable version) is like a liberal version of Fox -- a little to the left, but basically "fair and balanced."
Even CNN isn't as badly biased as the broadcast networks. Rather, Jennings, Brokaw are all so insularly liberal they don't even recognize that they are - they think its the only reasonable mainstream position and if you're at all to their right, you're a dangerous extremist.
Over here we used to call it the "Clinton News Network" if that answers your question. Ted Turner is himself pretty far left, about even with his wife, Hanoi Jane Fonda, and he does let his own opinions and his friendship with Bill Clinton influence his network's slant.
Fox is a little to the conservative side, but IMO basically "fair and balanced" as they claim.
MSNBC (the cable version) is like a liberal version of Fox -- a little to the left, but basically "fair and balanced."
Even CNN isn't as badly biased as the broadcast networks. Rather, Jennings, Brokaw are all so insularly liberal they don't even recognize that they are - they think its the only reasonable mainstream position and if you're at all to their right, you're a dangerous extremist.
Data compiled by Media Tenor Ltd., a non-partisan, German-based media analysis firm sheds a bit of a different light, I believe. While the anchors of the network news MIGHT be liberal, what really sets the agenda for news spin is what sources do they use? For this study, data was analyzed for the time period between January 1 and December 31, 2001, which included 14,632 sources in 18,765 individual reports. This was with ABC, NBC, CBS.
Of sources with an identifiable partisan affiliation, 75% were Republican and 24% Democrats. 1% were third-party representatives or independents.
The three networks varied only slightly in their selection of partisan sources. CBS had the most Republicans and the fewest Democrats (76% vs. 23%); NBC (75% vs. 25%) and ABC (73% vs. 27%) were marginally less imbalanced. CBS had the most independents (1.2%), followed by ABC (0.7%) and NBC (0.2%).
According to FAIR:
QUOTE
While these figures ought to dispel the persistent notion that network news has a liberal or pro-Democratic bias, they do not in themselves necessarily prove a conservative or Republican bias. Rather, they may reflect the networks’ definition of news that prioritizes the actions and opinions of the executive branch. Members of the Bush administration (and Clinton administration, for the pre-inauguration period in January), including the president, vice president, cabinet members and official spokespeople, made up 17 percent of all U.S. sources and 62 percent of all partisan sources. When these are set aside, the remaining partisan sources showed a rough parity between the two major parties, with 51 percent Republicans, 48 percent Democrats and 2 percent third-party members or independents appearing as sources.
This breakdown suggests that in 2001 there was a strong advantage on the nightly news for the party that held the White House; after the administration had its say, there was roughly one source from its own party to defend it for every representative from the opposition party that might criticize it. Unfortunately, complete data do not exist from 2000 or earlier to determine whether the same ratio held true during a Democratic administration.
The leading topics on which partisan sources were quoted, however, suggest that the disparities in sourcing could indicate a more substantial bias than mere reverence for the presidency. Partisan sources from both parties were most likely to appear in stories on domestic politicking, such as speeches or debates in Congress. After that area of coverage, however, their next most common appearances were qualitatively very different: Republicans appeared in reports on the widely supported war in Afghanistan, while 12 percent of the reports in which Democrats were quoted focused on corruption and scandals, with Democrats in most cases defending themselves or other party members. Republicans, by contrast, were presented in such reports in only 1 percent of their total appearances. By focusing so much on largely nonpolitical scandals (e.g., Chandra Levy, White House gifts) involving the party out of power, the networks bolstered the Republican image-- not only by showcasing Democratic "character" questions, but by reserving the vast majority of Republican quotes for more dignified policy discussions, thereby disassociating the party from the "dirty politics" of scandal-mongering.
This breakdown suggests that in 2001 there was a strong advantage on the nightly news for the party that held the White House; after the administration had its say, there was roughly one source from its own party to defend it for every representative from the opposition party that might criticize it. Unfortunately, complete data do not exist from 2000 or earlier to determine whether the same ratio held true during a Democratic administration.
The leading topics on which partisan sources were quoted, however, suggest that the disparities in sourcing could indicate a more substantial bias than mere reverence for the presidency. Partisan sources from both parties were most likely to appear in stories on domestic politicking, such as speeches or debates in Congress. After that area of coverage, however, their next most common appearances were qualitatively very different: Republicans appeared in reports on the widely supported war in Afghanistan, while 12 percent of the reports in which Democrats were quoted focused on corruption and scandals, with Democrats in most cases defending themselves or other party members. Republicans, by contrast, were presented in such reports in only 1 percent of their total appearances. By focusing so much on largely nonpolitical scandals (e.g., Chandra Levy, White House gifts) involving the party out of power, the networks bolstered the Republican image-- not only by showcasing Democratic "character" questions, but by reserving the vast majority of Republican quotes for more dignified policy discussions, thereby disassociating the party from the "dirty politics" of scandal-mongering.
What about CNN?
According to the Washington Post (10/31/01), CNN Chair Walter Isaacson "has ordered his staff to balance images of civilian devastation in Afghan cities with reminders that the Taliban harbors murderous terrorists, saying it 'seems perverse to focus too much on the casualties or hardship in Afghanistan.'"
Post media reporter Howard Kurtz quotes a memo from Isaacson to CNN's international correspondents: "As we get good reports from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, we must redouble our efforts to make sure we do not seem to be simply reporting from their vantage or perspective. We must talk about how the Taliban are using civilian shields and how the Taliban have harbored the terrorists responsible for killing close to 5,000 innocent people."
The memo went on to admonish reporters covering civilian deaths not to "forget it is that country's leaders who are responsible for the situation Afghanistan is now in," suggesting that journalists should lay responsibility for civilian casualties at the Taliban's door, not the U.S. military's.
Doesn't sound very leftist to me.
For CNN, as for the networks and Fox, we are really talking about incredibly huge corporations, with corresponding corporate structure and culture. The main driving force may indeed be commercialism uber alles, but there is also a strong drive to be friendly to the administration in power - it seems to me, anyway.
You're spinning, Quarkhead. 
I'm not going to dispute those numbers, but I will point out that FAIR is a liberal source, just as MRC which I'm about to use is conservative. Not sure about Media Tenor, not familiar with them.
Many of the TV journalists themselves admit they're liberal and so are their networks. Elite print journalists too:
Btw, above I said Jennings was one of the ones who were so insularly liberal that they didn't recognize that they were. Guess I was wrong about Jennings at least. Good.
I'm not going to dispute those numbers, but I will point out that FAIR is a liberal source, just as MRC which I'm about to use is conservative. Not sure about Media Tenor, not familiar with them.
Many of the TV journalists themselves admit they're liberal and so are their networks. Elite print journalists too:
QUOTE
"I thought he [former CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg] made some very good points. There is just no question that I, among others, have a liberal bias. I mean, I'm consistently liberal in my opinions. And I think some of the, I think Dan [Rather] is transparently liberal. Now, he may not like to hear me say that. I always agree with him, too, but I think he should be more careful."
-- CBS's 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney on Goldberg's book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, on CNN's Larry King Live, June 5, 2002
-- CBS's 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney on Goldberg's book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, on CNN's Larry King Live, June 5, 2002
QUOTE
"Most of the time I really think responsible journalists, of which I hope I'm counted as one, leave our bias at the side of the table. Now it is true, historically in the media, it has been more of a liberal persuasion for many years. It has taken us a long time, too long in my view, to have vigorous conservative voices heard as widely in the media as they now are. And so I think yes, on occasion, there is a liberal instinct in the media which we need to keep our eye on, if you will."
-- ABC anchor Peter Jennings appearing on CNN's Larry King Live, April 10, 2002
-- ABC anchor Peter Jennings appearing on CNN's Larry King Live, April 10, 2002
Btw, above I said Jennings was one of the ones who were so insularly liberal that they didn't recognize that they were. Guess I was wrong about Jennings at least. Good.
QUOTE
"[Journalists] have a certain worldview based on being in Manhattan...that isn’t per se liberal, but if you look at people there, they lean’ in that direction." — Columbia Journalism Review publisher David Laventhol, as reported in "Leaning on the Media" by Mark Jurkowitz, The Boston Globe, January 17, 2002.
QUOTE
"There is a liberal bias. It’s demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time. There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias. There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for —- most of the people who work at Newsweek live on the upper West Side in New York and they have a liberal bias....[ABC White House reporter] Brit Hume’s bosses are liberal and they’re always quietly denouncing him as being a right-wing nut." — Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas in an admission on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.
QUOTE
"Everybody knows that there's a liberal, that there's a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents.....Anybody who has to live with the people, who covers police stations, covers county courts, brought up that way, has to have a degree of humanity that people who do not have that exposure don't have, and some people interpret that to be liberal. It's not a liberal, it's humanitarian and that's a vastly different thing." –- Walter Cronkite, March 21, 1996 Radio & TV Correspondents Dinner.
QUOTE
"I think this is another reflection of the overwhelming journalistic tilt towards liberalism and those programs. Now the question is whether that’s bad or not, and that’s another debate. But the idea that many of us, and my colleagues deny that there is this kind of bias is nuts, because there is in our world. I forget what the surveys show but most of us are Democratic and probably most of us line up in the fairly liberal world." — Time Washington contributing editor Hugh Sidey responding to a caller who asked if journalists are in favor of affirmative action, July 21, 1995 C-SPAN Washington Journal.
QUOTE
"I think liberalism lives — the notion that we don’t have to stay where we are as a society, we have promises to keep, and it is liberalism, whether people like it or not, which has animated all the years of my life. What on Earth did conservatism ever accomplish for our country? It was people who wanted to change things for the better." — Charles Kuralt talking with Morley Safer on the CBS special, One for the Road with Charles Kuralt, May 5, 1994.
QUOTE
"As much as we try to think otherwise, when you’re covering some- one like yourself, and your position in life is insecure, she’s your mascot. Something in you roots for her. You’re rooting for your team. I try to get that bias out, but for many of us it’s there." — Time Senior Writer Margaret Carlson quoted in The Washington Post, March 7, 1994.
Another subjective response: All news coverage by any medium in any country is biased. In the US, all media is biased toward the interests of their corporate owners - which means toward the right of American politics. We have a conservative media - and this would include CNN, though it can be a bit more subtle and apparently objective than, say, Fox News (which would not have been out of place as a propaganda instrument for the Third Reich). Of course, the conservative bias is evident even in the editorial choices regarding which stories to cover at all, never mind the slant with which those few stories are reported.
The personal opinions of correspondents are totally irrelevant as they can only ever (even by implication) "comment" upon the aspects they're allowed to cover of the stories they're allowed to cover - and, even then, most of them are only "liberal" relative to America's one-party, right-wing Democratic-Republican government. Much of this has already been debated in the Myth of the Liberal Media thread. I don't have much to add to my first couple of postings there - though I would now have a lot to say on our conservative media's coverage of the current war-mongering by this administration. Maybe a new thread?
The personal opinions of correspondents are totally irrelevant as they can only ever (even by implication) "comment" upon the aspects they're allowed to cover of the stories they're allowed to cover - and, even then, most of them are only "liberal" relative to America's one-party, right-wing Democratic-Republican government. Much of this has already been debated in the Myth of the Liberal Media thread. I don't have much to add to my first couple of postings there - though I would now have a lot to say on our conservative media's coverage of the current war-mongering by this administration. Maybe a new thread?
I've gotten this reaction before when I've cited FAIR. I really don't think it is accurate as a criticism, however. I will explain why.
When you look at groups like MRC, they are focusing more on opinion, and also, as can be seen by the quotes you used, on the voting record or party membership of the journalists, not the news itself.
On the other hand, while there are some articles given air by FAIR which are opinion and analysis, they base what they're saying more on real studies like the one I quoted: looking at the numbers. And what, really, constitutes the substance of the news we absorb? Is it that Dan Rather is a Democrat? No. We are more influenced by the sources used for the news. Those are the numbers which really matter. We have a tendency to trust people who are presented as "experts." Why? That's a long and complicated psychological thing, but it is generally true.
FAIR points out again and again, that the corporate news is biased more towards power than it is towards a partisan break. What I see from the MRC is more of a partisan streak. What does it matter that various journalists and anchors vote Democratic? As if the Democratic party of Bill Clinton was really liberal. That should go on the "political joke" thread.
In Propaganda and the Public Mind, as well as in Manufacturing Consent, Noam Chomsky talks about the establishment media being a sort of false left. It serves power to define, say, the NYT as far left. Surely, the NYT is to the left of center, but what it really does is define the scope of acceptable debate. Anything to the left of the NYT can be safely dismissed without even really being addressed. It can be ignored because it has been rendered beyond the scope of debate.
To sum up: What I see from the MRC is quotes from people saying the media is liberal, mostly because journalists are by and large Democrats. On the other hand, FAIR tends to look at story sources to uncover spin. No one refutes the numbers. They will just try and dismiss FAIR in toto by alleging they are a liberal group, and therefore ought to be ignored. Finally, if the media really is liberal, why is it that so many pundits and left-leaning people think it is not? Shouldn't they be rejoicing? Shouldn't they be gloating? Ha ha, at least we still have the media, nya nya?
CNN is not liberal. It's not even really conservative. It serves power. It serves the power of the administration, and it serves the power of corporate interest.
When you look at groups like MRC, they are focusing more on opinion, and also, as can be seen by the quotes you used, on the voting record or party membership of the journalists, not the news itself.
On the other hand, while there are some articles given air by FAIR which are opinion and analysis, they base what they're saying more on real studies like the one I quoted: looking at the numbers. And what, really, constitutes the substance of the news we absorb? Is it that Dan Rather is a Democrat? No. We are more influenced by the sources used for the news. Those are the numbers which really matter. We have a tendency to trust people who are presented as "experts." Why? That's a long and complicated psychological thing, but it is generally true.
FAIR points out again and again, that the corporate news is biased more towards power than it is towards a partisan break. What I see from the MRC is more of a partisan streak. What does it matter that various journalists and anchors vote Democratic? As if the Democratic party of Bill Clinton was really liberal. That should go on the "political joke" thread.
In Propaganda and the Public Mind, as well as in Manufacturing Consent, Noam Chomsky talks about the establishment media being a sort of false left. It serves power to define, say, the NYT as far left. Surely, the NYT is to the left of center, but what it really does is define the scope of acceptable debate. Anything to the left of the NYT can be safely dismissed without even really being addressed. It can be ignored because it has been rendered beyond the scope of debate.
To sum up: What I see from the MRC is quotes from people saying the media is liberal, mostly because journalists are by and large Democrats. On the other hand, FAIR tends to look at story sources to uncover spin. No one refutes the numbers. They will just try and dismiss FAIR in toto by alleging they are a liberal group, and therefore ought to be ignored. Finally, if the media really is liberal, why is it that so many pundits and left-leaning people think it is not? Shouldn't they be rejoicing? Shouldn't they be gloating? Ha ha, at least we still have the media, nya nya?
CNN is not liberal. It's not even really conservative. It serves power. It serves the power of the administration, and it serves the power of corporate interest.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Mar 13 2003, 09:31 AM)
We have a conservative media - and this would include CNN, though it can be a bit more subtle and apparently objective than, say, Fox News (which would not have been out of place as a propaganda instrument for the Third Reich).
And Quarkhead, it isn't that there aren't plenty of numbers and studies on the MRC site. I just didn't feel like using them. Maybe later, building a PC is kinda distracting.
I'm sorry to keep going with this, but I feel I must. I have looked extensively at the MRC site. Their "numbers" and "studies" are consistently concerned with two things: that journalists and reporters have personally liberal leanings, and that people think the media is liberal. Their statistics tend to be like this:
Or their numbers are based on polls asking various groups of people whether they think the media is biased towards the liberal.
FAIR, on the other hand, never denies these figures - they concentrate on the news itself, it's contents, and who the media turns to for "expert" opinions.
Which of these is more important? The MRC never addresses the corporate control of the media, nor does it address the studies FAIR puts out about the content of the news. What does it matter if you have a room full of Democratic-voting reporters who are very limited as to WHAT they can report, and who they can talk to about it?
I would go so far as to say that the perception of the media as brazenly liberal is one of the great conservative triumphs of the century. They've even got mainstream liberals agreeing.
Again, I ask, if the media is so gosh darn liberal, why do so many on the left criticize it as being conservative? On both sides, you must admit it is a bit weird - everyone's claiming that the media is biased to the other side... maybe that means they really are fairly balanced? I don't know...
QUOTE
81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976.
* In the Democratic landslide of 1964, 94 percent of the press surveyed voted for President Lyndon Johnson (D) over Senator Barry Goldwater ®.
* In 1968, 86 percent of the press surveyed voted for Democrat Senator Hubert Humphrey.
* In 1972, when 62 percent of the electorate chose President Richard Nixon, 81 percent of the media elite voted for liberal Democratic Senator George McGovern.
* In 1976, the Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter, captured the allegiance of 81 percent of the reporters surveyed while a mere 19 percent cast their ballots for President Gerald Ford.
* Over the 16-year period, the Republican candidate always received less than 20 percent of the media’s vote.
* In the Democratic landslide of 1964, 94 percent of the press surveyed voted for President Lyndon Johnson (D) over Senator Barry Goldwater ®.
* In 1968, 86 percent of the press surveyed voted for Democrat Senator Hubert Humphrey.
* In 1972, when 62 percent of the electorate chose President Richard Nixon, 81 percent of the media elite voted for liberal Democratic Senator George McGovern.
* In 1976, the Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter, captured the allegiance of 81 percent of the reporters surveyed while a mere 19 percent cast their ballots for President Gerald Ford.
* Over the 16-year period, the Republican candidate always received less than 20 percent of the media’s vote.
Or their numbers are based on polls asking various groups of people whether they think the media is biased towards the liberal.
FAIR, on the other hand, never denies these figures - they concentrate on the news itself, it's contents, and who the media turns to for "expert" opinions.
Which of these is more important? The MRC never addresses the corporate control of the media, nor does it address the studies FAIR puts out about the content of the news. What does it matter if you have a room full of Democratic-voting reporters who are very limited as to WHAT they can report, and who they can talk to about it?
I would go so far as to say that the perception of the media as brazenly liberal is one of the great conservative triumphs of the century. They've even got mainstream liberals agreeing.
Again, I ask, if the media is so gosh darn liberal, why do so many on the left criticize it as being conservative? On both sides, you must admit it is a bit weird - everyone's claiming that the media is biased to the other side... maybe that means they really are fairly balanced? I don't know...
If the people involved make contradictory claims, then surely the finished product is the best litmus test. From a distance it certainly strikes me as right wing.
I've seen all the arguments about how the press in the US has a liberal slant. Everyone focuses on the reporters, who are generally liberal thinkers.
What about the editors?
Editors give the final okay on copy; editors decide what runs on the front page or in prime time; editors make a heckuva lot more money than reporters and probably enjoy stock options.
So, which way do editors lean?
What about the editors?
Editors give the final okay on copy; editors decide what runs on the front page or in prime time; editors make a heckuva lot more money than reporters and probably enjoy stock options.
So, which way do editors lean?
Hey, AM! What's this "everyone" poo-poo? I've been arguing from the outset of every thread which has touched on this subject that the superficial opinions of a few reporters, correspondents, and anchors are totally irrelevant. That's why I can state unequivocally that the United States of America has a decidedly conservative press. The editors, the publishers, the owners all serve the needs of the corporate parent. Always. Without exception - and that includes CNN (and, for that matter, NPR). Speaking of which, such digressions into the press at large should probably be posted to the Myth of the Liberal Media thread. 
There are a number of books that provide a wealth of anecdotal examples of liberal media bias. Are there any decent ones that give the same kind of information about a perceived conservative bias.
I'd be open to reading them, after all I'm a 'fair and balanced' kinda guy.
My own take is that this is an issue that would be next-to-impossible to prove either way. So much of it is subjective and it is all colored by our own beliefs. I think it was Goldberg in Bias who said that was the very root of the debate. The liberal media thinks their ideas are mainstream. The fact that they're wrong never enters their minds.
I'd be open to reading them, after all I'm a 'fair and balanced' kinda guy.
My own take is that this is an issue that would be next-to-impossible to prove either way. So much of it is subjective and it is all colored by our own beliefs. I think it was Goldberg in Bias who said that was the very root of the debate. The liberal media thinks their ideas are mainstream. The fact that they're wrong never enters their minds.
Wertz,
Sorry, man, but the focus is on the journalist grunts from those who claim a bias (what I meant by "everyone"). Didn't mean to include you.
MM,
I suppose somebody could write a book about conservative bias, but I doubt that there's a market for it. You might buy a copy, but would liberals? Other conservatives? Naw. If you're going to sell to liberals, you'd better have a sense of humor or some kind of vision. Moaning about the status quo flops. If selling to conservatives, you'd better do what the published authors have done--which I won't name because I am biased
Well, okay, since you insist--blame everything on liberals!
Sorry, man, but the focus is on the journalist grunts from those who claim a bias (what I meant by "everyone"). Didn't mean to include you.
MM,
I suppose somebody could write a book about conservative bias, but I doubt that there's a market for it. You might buy a copy, but would liberals? Other conservatives? Naw. If you're going to sell to liberals, you'd better have a sense of humor or some kind of vision. Moaning about the status quo flops. If selling to conservatives, you'd better do what the published authors have done--which I won't name because I am biased
Well, okay, since you insist--blame everything on liberals!
QUOTE(JonBon @ Mar 5 2003, 10:03 AM)
As a European, I don't know much about America's media, but I recently heard CNN described as a 'Pinko Propoganda Channel' on another board.
Does CNN have a left wing bias, or was the poster in question talking out of his behind?
Does CNN have a left wing bias, or was the poster in question talking out of his behind?
It appears JonBon was interested in only discussing the bias of CNN. I know that seems limiting to some of you.
We do have another thread open to discuss liberal bias in the media (The Myth of the Liberal Media) and I would welcome a thread on conservative bias.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.