Liberal Bias in the Media

[Acumen]

Here are a few interesting graphs about the media and graphs about Iraq.

[Acumen]

I love that last one.   

[Faithfulee]

They all are graphic examples of the bias that the American Public faces every day.

Hopefully these images will serve to awaken Americans to the real world we live in. 

Thanks for posting them.


I can't understand why so few have picked up on the fact that News Anchors accompanied Obama on his "fact finding" trip to Afghanistan and Europe.  What a show,  but the good part is that  they all failed, Obama is dropping in the polls every day.

[SquirleyWurley]

Re: one of my favorite conservative columnists:

http://journalism.about.com/b/2007/09/13/george-will-leads-conservative-majority-on-op-ed-pages.htm

In connection with his recent book "One Man's America: The Pleasures and Provocations of Our Singular Nation", George Will stated in an interview on C-span that a huge issue with the media is the 24/7 news media, with 3 news cycles a day, which increases the rhetoric and animosity and irrelevance of discussion, the focus upon controversy, etc.  I agree with him on this (and other) issues.

[Acumen]

Re: one of my favorite conservative columnists:

http://journalism.about.com/b/2007/09/13/george-will-leads-conservative-majority-on-op-ed-pages.htm

In connection with his recent book "One Man's America: The Pleasures and Provocations of Our Singular Nation", George Will stated in an interview on C-span that a huge issue with the media is the 24/7 news media, with 3 news cycles a day, which increases the rhetoric and animosity and irrelevance of discussion, the focus upon controversy, etc.  I agree with him on this (and other) issues.

Let me see, the article says that 60% of the daily newspapers print more conservative syndicated columnists each week than liberal columnists.  Who cares about what 60% of the newspapers do?  I want to know what 100% of the news papers do.  Anybody can gather all of the conservative news papers into a single study and leave out the liberal news papers in order to fudge the facts.  Anybody who is familiar with the media already knows where the bias is. 

Also, who cares about syndicated columnists, I want to know how many liberal columns are printed in contrast to conservative columns in news papers as a totality.

I also find the existence of a "liberal media watch dog group" a fascinating thing since most media groups are liberal.

Also, how many of the local news papers are dominated by the Associated Press?  So please don't tell me that the nail has been put into the coffin of the liberal media myth.  There is no coffin, it's not even disputed. 

[SquirleyWurley]

Let me see, the article says that 60% of the daily newspapers print more conservative syndicated columnists each week than liberal columnists.  Who cares about what 60% of the newspapers do?  I want to know what 100% of the news papers do.

Um we can deduce that the remaining 40% post less conservative syndicated columnists than the aforementioned 60% do, but yes, it's good to have well-done studies and to see the details.

Anybody can gather all of the conservative news papers into a single study and leave out the liberal news papers in order to fudge the facts.  Anybody who is familiar with the media already knows where the bias is.

Sure, the Wallstreet journal is more conservative, the NY Times is more liberal, the Washington Post is more conservative, FOX is conservative, CNN and MSNBC are mixed with more liberals than Fox, talk radio is mostly conservative, etc.

Also, who cares about syndicated columnists, I want to know how many liberal columns are printed in contrast to conservative columns in news papers as a totality.

That would make a good study, yes.

I also find the existence of a "liberal media watch dog group" a fascinating thing since most media groups are liberal.

For me it's like the watchdog groups re: the Supreme Court.  When people on both sides complain about the bias of something, it makes me feel like both sides are expecting the bias to be in their favor when they assess objectivity.  I.e., the bias seems to me to be the 24/7 infotainment, lazy reporter, controversialist bias, rather than a true conservative or liberal bias, in the media.  And I'm glad that the supreme court does not always please either party, it's job isn't to please either party.

Also, how many of the local news papers are dominated by the Associated Press?  So please don't tell me that the nail has been put into the coffin of the liberal media myth.  There is no coffin, it's not even disputed.

Again, I think conservative columnist George Will put it well on C-span during the interview for his recent book, the news media is very fast paced and this distorts the quality and relevance of the news.

[Faithfulee]

The charts and tables speak for themselves.

The Media is liberal and tends to highlight when things go bad for America.

The most revolting chart shows the decline in coverage when US troops and American policy clearly is working in Iraq as evidenced by the decline in US killed.  Why wouldn't there be more coverage in such times?  The answer is obvious, bias.

[SquirleyWurley]

The charts are interesting if read accurately.  It says 59% identified as moderate, and 11% didn't know/refused, while among the rest there was a little bit more liberals than conservatives.  Sorry, don't see a HUGE bias, there are certainly enough moderates and others to potentially ballance things.  The large number that didn't reply as either liberal or conservative is interesting.

My interpretation does make sense in that it allows for the complexity of reality.  I.e., it isn't just a simplistic left/right liberal/conservative bias thing, factors besides partisanship or political tendency are considered, etc.

The facts of the 24/7 news environment with 3 news cycles a day, DOES explain a lot of the hysteria of the news, the quickness to turn up any weird thing, any sort of dirt, that panders to excitement/criticism/argument.

Some will bring their bias to their work, some will be liberal and do this, some will be conservative and do this.

The distortion you see in the news is about more than partisanship or left/right - liberal/conservative identification, though it does sometimes involve these.

Who owns the major news services?  A lot of conservatives certainly do, and it's interesting to see how some of the 'more liberal' papers have editorials which reflect the conservative stance of the owners.  But the reality is that the factors that distort the press are varied.

It isn't some monolithic liberal conspiracy.

[Faithfulee]

Wurley

It is interesting that the really successful conservatives like Rush Limbaugh are proud to say they are conservative.  An commentators like  the intelligent and  well spoken George Will  quietly admit to their conservative stance.

On the other hand liberals don’t seem to be proud of their position these days.  That is why the great number of ‘unsure’. 

My prime source in the wall Street Journal, that is conservative, but well grounded in facts from a business persons, market oriented point of view.  Rarely have they been charged of distorting fact for political purposes.

I am pleased to note that the liberal media are having a tougher and tougher time.  I  don’t do print media,  and I do note that in their internet  publications whey allow for comment and most of that is  far more conservative than liberal

[SquirleyWurley]

The trends seem to change with time, and vary regionally.  I think a lot of Democrats are independent, or are moderate, or have a conservative streak on certain issues, and that prevents them from identifying as 'a liberal' though they may admit to being 'liberal in certain ways'

[Faithfulee]

The trends seem to change with time, and vary regionally.  I think a lot of Democrats are independent, or are moderate, or have a conservative streak on certain issues, and that prevents them from identifying as 'a liberal' though they may admit to being 'liberal in certain ways'

The public is brainwashed by liberals beginning is grade school.  A caller to Rush today (a HS student) told of how her science teacher made the class watch an Al Gore DVD in class.

[SquirleyWurley]

There are also conservative teachers who try to influence children in classes in various ways, to give them information or perspective that they feel is important, though informed by their own politics.

Yet, in a civics or social studies class, or perhaps other classes, seeing a documentary on a political subject may be a good thing.  How is it done?

Ideally, teachers would be better at avoiding undue influence, more aware of how their bias is effecting things, and the environment would be one in which students are encouraged to think critically and to look for the best arguments and the best understanding of the evidence, whether they agree with the teacher or not.  This can be done.

[Faithfulee]

There are also conservative teachers who try to influence children in classes in various ways, to give them information or perspective that they feel is important, though informed by their own politics.

Yet, in a civics or social studies class, or perhaps other classes, seeing a documentary on a political subject may be a good thing.  How is it done?

Ideally, teachers would be better at avoiding undue influence, more aware of how their bias is effecting things, and the environment would be one in which students are encouraged to think critically and to look for the best arguments and the best understanding of the evidence, whether they agree with the teacher or not.  This can be done.

Sadly, we don't have many "ideal" teachers.  I think the term "teacher" is outmoded, because it focuses on the old way where children were not in school to learn, but to be "taught"  In this example the student was NOT encouraged to discuss or debate alternate viewpoint.  He was there to be taught. and in our system it is entirely possible that he would be tested on what he was "taught" in the "gorey" DVD.

[SquirleyWurley]

It seems to me that's a huge problem with the media, too.  I.e., too much of it is partisan hacks spoon feeding a party line with little independent thinking, preaching to the choir, throwing around rhetoric, rather than fostering real discussion of issues/dialog.

So what happens is there are fluffy media stories, sensational stories, things with a slant on 'what bleeds leads', and you get conservatives and liberals BOTH trashing the bias of the media.

[Faithfulee]

It seems to me that's a huge problem with the media, too.  I.e., too much of it is partisan hacks spoon feeding a party line with little independent thinking, preaching to the choir, throwing around rhetoric, rather than fostering real discussion of issues/dialog.

So what happens is there are fluffy media stories, sensational stories, things with a slant on 'what bleeds leads', and you get conservatives and liberals BOTH trashing the bias of the media.

The media knows right now that al Sadr has disanded his Army.  You know the one that a year ago was killing Muslims and Americans in record numbers.  That was before the surge (but not before Canon Andrew White).  While most sane observers credit the surge,  I give God credit.  In any event the media doesn't want to give either credit, so they ignore the wonderful news.

[SquirleyWurley]

Yep, if it bleeds, it leads.

[Faithfulee]

Only when the blood is American and the press can use it to bash Bush.

The latest flap over putting air in tires is another example.

The original Obama comment said "putting air in your tires" will save more oil than drilling.

It was a stupid remark that cannot be supported by fact, so he changed the statement and the discussion by later saying McCain agreed with him.  That is a lie and anyone who looks at the statement in it's entirity would know it.  The press puppets the Obama position by never mentioning the Obama statment in full.

What a silly issue to be discussing in a campaign for US President. And Obama brought it up, silly -----  that he is.

[SquirleyWurley]

Well much of the media is silly, sloppy, and controversialist.

The more time we spend soaking it up, the more we may risk getting sucked up into its distorting environment.

In the late 80's to early 90's, people didn't as quickly categorize people to write them off as stupid and unworthy of consideration of anything they said.  Yes there were always extreme people, dogmatic, ideological people, who did that, but many people could discuss things with people who disagreed, and there was less of that toxic attitude of unwillingness to discuss and engage consideration of an argument or evidence.  Today once a buzz-word indicates possible conservatism or liberalism, so many are very quick to just demonize the other viewpoint and write off everything the other person says completely.

The fact is that someone who is largely in error can still wind up presenting an interesting or useful point, a tidbit of information that is accurate and relevant, an argument that may have value to some degree or another.  So it maddens me when an exchange is reduced to the level of the 'talking heads' on cable news programs, etc.

[Acumen]

Squirly,

Right, but people want objective reporting from their news stations, and they are not getting.  And lately, liberal news outlets like the NY Times and CNN have been taking a big hit in sales as a result while Fox News is flourishing on a yearly basis.

[Acumen]

Here is an interesting study done on the news coverage of Rev. Wright's controversial sermons and commentary afterwards.

"A Media Research Center study of ABC, CBS, and NBC news broadcasts from the formal announcement of the Obama campaign on February 10, 2007 through July 15 reveals that a viewer watching only broadcast TV news would have received a much more limited (and even censored) version of Wright’s sermons.”


Also, "# A Fox News Channel report on March 1, 2007, delved into the “black value system” of Rev. Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. But the name of Rev. Wright did not surface on the Big Three networks until a year later, on CBS on Feb. 28, 2008.

# The first story with excerpts from a Wright sermon did not air until two weeks later, on ABC on March 13.By that time, 42 states had already voted in the primaries.

And, Wright’s April 28 comments at the National Press Club reiterating his claims about an AIDS conspiracy and America deserving 9/11 went virtually unreported, with the AIDS comments receiving no air time and the 9/11 charge just 23 seconds. The same Big Three aired nearly six minutes of clips of Wright’s “softball interview” with Bill Moyers on PBS, the MRC disclosed.





http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/media_coverup_wright/2008/08/12/121354.html?utm_medium=RSS