The media is biased!

<p>

“My way” simply means “The truth without embelishments or conveniently left-out facts”.</p>

<p>

Too bad 99% of the media disagrees with your view, and works actively against it.</p>

<p>

Or, we can recognize that the best way for a journalist to get recognized these days is to pretend to be in the thick of some disaster or other (blaming it on Bush, of course), or destroying someone’s life. Reporting the news has nothing to do with it.</p>

<p>

Terrific. I’ll order the Rosetta Stone for Farsi and Chinese now. Anyone in for a group buy? We’ll be needing them if the “social commentary” (i.e. - propaganda) being delivered these days is what the future holds for us.</p>

<p>As a traditional Republican, I see our efforts as needing to be focused on being fiscally responsible, with the government stepping on MY personal freedoms and privacy as little as possible. </p>

<p>Too bad 99% of the media disagrees with your view, and works actively against it.</p>

<p>I don’t think its the media that disagrees with Shogun as it is the “Republicans” currently in power.</p>

<p>Bull. The media disagrees with both Shogun AND the Republicans. They disagree with Shogun (and me) because they hate the small-government, individual-freedom agenda we believe in (unless, of course, it’s your “right” to kill your kid. They disagree with the Republicans because they are mostly leftists and the Dems invite them to all the parties.</p>

<p>Are the current Republicans completely infested with RINOs? Absolutely. That just means the media hates them less now than they would if the GOP was packed full of Reagan Conservatives.</p>

<p>Would you agree with the premise of the study initially cited? That bias is in the eye of the reader/watcher.</p>

<p>[The second study, if I read it correctly, basis its premise of a liberal media soley on what source is quoted in the story; that is, a media story quotes a liberal source it must be slanted towards the liberal agenda and vice-versa. While an interesting approach, I don’t necessarily agree with the premise.]</p>

<p>No, I would not, simply because the overwhelming majority of news outlets that claim to be “objective” are decidedly left-leaning. It is a fact that is obvious to anyone willing to look.</p>

<p>You guys flame me for listening to Rush Limbaugh, claiming he is biased. Well, I KNOW he is biased, and he makes no secret of it. But when the rest of the media slant, color, and turn the news (and many stomachs, I might add), but then freak out when called on the bias, the double standard is readily apparent.</p>

<p>Look at the orgasm the media is having over what Mel Gibson said while drunk. Meanwhile, Alec Baldwin goes on the airwaves and while stone-cold sober basically says that Henry Hyde and his family should be taken out and stoned. Narely a peep of protest from the media.</p>

<p>The difference? Gibson is a Christian, and the guy who upset the Hollyweird applecart by making HIS movie HIS way with HIS money, and then (horror of horrors) SUCCEEDING at it. Baldwin was protecting Bubba. There you go.</p>

<p>One example among thousands.</p>

<p>You guys want to believe that the mainstream media is objective, and that charges of liberal bias are unfounded? Knock yourselves out, but I’m afraid I’ll give your position on that subject as much credibility as I do to the opinion of those who believe we never landed on the moon, and have reams of “data” to support it. Reality is reality, and if you don’t want to accept it, well, that’s your own lookout.</p>

<p>Zaphod out.</p>

<p>ETA: One thing: I could not possibly care less if a news outlet WANTS to slant the news and does so, provided it ADMITS IT. Then you, me, and every other consumer can make an informed choice. Sadly, they don’t.</p>

<p>You go, Zaphod! I’m right there with you. In addition, the news isn’t even the news. Its all about Americal Idol, So you want to Dance etc…Just dumb us down some more!I listen/watch all news sources and the only one I find to be remotely intelligent is William Kristol of the Weekly Standard. I do watch Lehrer etc… too.</p>

<p>Bill Kristol is extremely intelligent but I don’t think I would trust him as an unbiased news source: (some wikipedia stuff—I know i know :slight_smile: )</p>

<p>"Kristol’s political activities began at the ripe old age of 12, when he aided Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s campaign for City Council president. In 1968, while he was in high school, Kristol volunteered to work on the campaign of Hubert Humphrey. </p>

<p>In 1972 he helped organize the Harvard-Radcliffe Students for Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson, the Washington Democrat around whom many neoconservatives organized in the late 1960s and early 1970s. (Because of his extremely close ties to the defense industry, the ultra-hawkish Jackson was dubbed the “senator from Boeing.”) (14)</p>

<p>In the mid-1970s, Kristol switched to the Republican Party along with many other neoconservatives. After working on the staff of then-Secretary of Education William Bennett in the early 1980s, Kristol ran the unsuccessful 1988 U.S. Senate campaign of Alan Keyes in Maryland. (13) While working as Vice President Dan Quayle’s chief of staff he earned the moniker “Quayle’s Brain.”</p>

<p>In the 1990s, Kristol founded a number of successful initiatives that helped make him a key inside-the-beltway pundit. Using money from Rupert Murdoch, Kristol established (along with fellow neoconservative scion, John Podhoretz) The Weekly Standard, which is today considered a must-read for anyone trying to divine the course of Bush administration policies; in 1997 he founded (with Robert Kagan) the Project for the New America Century; and earlier in the decade, he began the Project for the Republican Future, an organization that was credited with helping shape the strategy that produced the 1994 Republican congressional victory. In 2000, the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz described Kristol as having “become part of Washington’s circulatory system, this half-pol, half-pundit, full-throated advocate with the nice-guy image” who is “wired to nearly all the Republican presidential candidates.” (14)</p>

<p>Kristol is coauthor, with The New Republic’s Lawrence Kaplan, of the 2003 book The War over Iraq, in which the authors state that the “wisdom of regime change, the merits of promoting democracy, the desirability of American power and influence–these issues extend well beyond Iraq. So we dare to hope that this work will prove useful even after Baghdad is finally free"; he is coauthor, with Robert Kagan, of a much-quoted 1997 Foreign Affairs article called “Towards a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy,” in which the authors argue that the United States should establish a “benevolent hegemony;” and he edited, with Robert Kagan, Present Dangers: Crisis and Opportunity in American Foreign Policy (Encounter Books) 2000.</p>

<p>In 2002 Media Bypass reported, “In what has been called ‘punditgate,’ conservative journalists Bill Kristol and Erwin Stelzer of The Weekly Standard … have been exposed for accepting Enron largesse. … Kristol, chief of staff to former Vice President Dan Quayle, took $100,000 without disclosing the payments at the time. … Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard who postures as an independent journalist, got the money for serving on an Enron advisory board, and, in the words of Stelzer, keeping Enron Chairman Ken Lay and his team ‘up to date on general public policy trends.’” (16)</p>

<p>Kristol was dubbed “Dan Quayle’s brain” by The New Republic upon being appointed the Vice President’s chief of staff
As Quayle’s speechwriter, Kristol would regularly sprinkle Quayle’s speeches with numerous classical references; this stopped after a reporter discovered that Quayle had no idea where one citation from Plato had come from.
When voting in the 1984 November election in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Kristol inadvertently voted for the Communist candidate for Tip O’Neill’s House seat, thinking that Tip’s sole opponent was a Republican. </p>

<p>Kristol first made his mark as leader of the Project for the Republican Future, a conservative think tank, and rose to fame as a conservative opinionmaker during the battle over the Clinton health care plan. In his first of what would become legendary strategy memos circulated among Republican policymakers, Kristol said the party should “kill”, not amend or compromise on, the Clinton health care plan. In doing so, Kristol presented the first public document uniting Republicans behind total opposition to the reform plan. A later memo advocated the phrase There is no health care crisis, which Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole used in his response to Clinton’s 1994 State of the Union address.</p>

<p>After the Republican sweep of both houses of Congress in 1994, arguably a result of the debacle over health care reform, Kristol established, along with neoconservative John Podhoretz and with financing from Rupert Murdoch, the conservative periodical The Weekly Standard. In 1997, he founded, with Robert Kagan, the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a movement credited in part for some of the foreign policy decisions of the Bush administration as evidenced by their 1998 letter to US President Bill Clinton advocating military action in Iraq to “protect our vital interests in the Gulf”. He is also a member of the long-time conservative think tank the American Enterprise Institute from which the Bush administration has borrowed over two dozen members to fill various government offices and panels. Kristol is currently chairman of PNAC and editor of The Weekly Standard.</p>

<p>In 2005, Kristol caused controversy by praising President George W. Bush’s second inaugural address without disclosing his role as a consultant to the writing of the speech. Kristol praised the speech highly in his role as a regular political contributor during FOX’s coverage of the address, as well as in a Weekly Standard article, without disclosing his involvement in the speech either time."</p>

<p>Did anyone claim he was unbiased? I’m sure HE doesn’t.</p>

<p>Unlike, say, Dan Rather. :rolleyes:</p>

<p>“Did anyone claim he was unbiased? I’m sure HE doesn’t.”</p>

<p>Sure he does, he’s part of the “fair and balanced” team :)</p>

<p>I remember Dan Rather apologizing for not checking his source more thoroughly, and he certainly was held to a high enough standard to get him fired by that same “left wing media”.</p>

<p>The only reality is the one that you espouse? </p>

<p>Back to the study orignally cited . . . . what do you think about it?</p>

<p>If one follows the original study to a logical conclusion (ie., bias is in the eye of the beholder), one would expect if the media were balanced (espoused the viewpoint of the average American) that half of those polled would believe the media was too liberal and half those polled would believe that the media is too conservative. That is not the case. A Gallup poll in 2005 showed about half the public thinks the media is too liberal and about one third thinks it is about right. I suppose the remainder thinks the media is too conservative or did not respond.</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/4129_0_2_0_C/[/url]”>http://www.aim.org/media_monitor/4129_0_2_0_C/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>The Gallup site is a pay site so I did not link it directly. Other polls (Harris, Roper, etc.) have similar findings.</p>

<p>Added Gallup website, if anyone wants to pay (available free paragraph says enough, however):
<a href=“Gallup News | Nonpartisan Analysis of Critical Global Issues”>Gallup News | Nonpartisan Analysis of Critical Global Issues;

<p>Look at the following article: </p>

<p><a href=“http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html[/url]”>http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>I found that conservatives view this as proof of WMDs and consider it “fair” reporting while moderates/liberals say 1) why was this declassified, 2) these are “old” weapons and therefore not relevant. They would consider it biased.</p>

<p>I’m curious CC posters, do you think this is a fair or biased article?</p>

<p>From the gallup website:</p>

<p>Half of Americans say they trust the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. Confidence in the media has increased significantly since last year, but the level of confidence remains slightly lower than what Gallup has found in recent years. A plurality of Americans describe the news media as too liberal, while one in six say they are too conservative. Republicans are much less likely than Democrats to express confidence in the media, and are much more likely to perceive media bias, with most saying they are too liberal.</p>

<p>The first sentence states that half of Americans say they trust the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly.</p>

<p>Yet neither your nor the AIM article emphasized this point. The second sentence states that confidence has increased–“significantly”–yet the article emphasizes the decline–“slightly lower” according to the poll–from recent years. The referenced headline apparent stated: “Trust in media is growing.” Which is apparently a true statement.</p>

<p>I don’t have the benefit of the entire poll and, as you should be aware, figures lie and liars figure . . . so the stats can be made to say what you please.
While it may be true that the poll indicates half of the public thinks the media is too liberal, it appears to also say that half the public thinks the media accurately reports the news.</p>

<p>The orginal study did not attempt to determine whether viewes thought the presentation was too “liberal” or too “conservative.” Rather, the study merely tried to determine whether bias was in the eye of the beholder or in the presentation. Based on I will assume on scientifically valid methodology, the study concluded bias was in the eye of the beholder.</p>

<p>Answers to your article question will also serve this up. Quickly? I think the article was fine. [More careful look later] WMDs in Iraq is a true statement. It may not be an *accurate * statement as the predicate for invading Iraq, but on its face, it is a true statement.</p>

<p>AFDAD2010:</p>

<p>With regard to the article you posted I would agree with the position of the vast majority of Americans, members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, the Defense Department, AND the Administration in that WMD’s have not been found in Iraq. What was “found” and reported by Fox News was outdated ordinance left over from the Iran-Iraq War which did not qualify (even by the President’s standard) as part of the “clear and gathering threat” of Iraq against the United States for which we needed to invade. The Defense department (according to the Fox article) stated that these “found” weapons were not in usable condition. Santorum (and the folks that most likely encouraged him) was making this little “announcement” in the hopes that the story would grow “legs”–instead it went nowhere, as it should have gone. The fact that neither the Administration nor most of the Republican Congress chose not to attach themselves to this particular stunt speaks volumes. The fact that Fox News was the only major cable or reg network to push the story also speaks volumes.</p>

<p>I just feel that Crystol is obviously an intellectual and I am not finding him to be a Bush puppet. Don’t get me wrong, I am not happy with Bush currently. Are there any qualified conservative statesman out there? For that matter, I’m not seeing any qualified liberal ones either. I watch Lehrer because it is at least not as bad as the networks. At least they go more in depth.
It makes the time pass until Parents Weekend!!!</p>

<p>I agree Crystol is intellectually gifted, and also not a Bush puppet. Most conservatives like Crystol are very dissatisfied that he has turned out to be a bit moderate on some of their hot button issues, ie they don’t think he’s gone far enough in pursueing the conservative agenda while president.
You are right, not a whole lot of “statemen” on either side of the coin that I feel “red hot” about right now. Just a lot of the same. I think there are some promising up and comers out there, but in time for 2008?–I don’t think so.</p>

<p>It is very frustrating indeed! However, I get to see Jake in 10 days!!!If any terrorist tries to take over my flight to Annapolis, they don’t stand a chance!!!</p>

<p>Check it out:</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.cfr.org/[/url]”>http://www.cfr.org/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Bill0510, these are my observations:

  1. I conceded in my first post that bias is in the eye of the beholder and I don’t need a scientific study prove the sun rises in the east. The link was to the Washington Post and not the study, but I assume the paper was faithful to the results.
  2. I provided a link to a UCLA synopsis of a scientific study concluding that the media is biased which was published in a reputable journal. The study was dismissed, “While an interesting approach, I don’t necessarily agree with the premise” yet no reasoning was offered as to why the methodolgy would lead to erroneous results.
  3. I postulated that if the media was balanced that half of individuals would find the media too liberal and half would find the media too conservative (the logical conclusion of the first article). I provided links which stated that almost half of those polled thought the media was too liberal and one third thought the media was balanced. The scientific poll was conducted by the reputable polling firm Gallup. You chose to hone in on another conclusion that about half Americans trust the media-- I trust the media as a whole only because I can choose my news sources and thus counter the majority of left-leaning news sources. You dismiss the article with the blanket statement “figures lie and liars figure”, with that philosophy I assume you always go to the original poll or study (although you did not in the original article, presumably because you intellectually agree with the findings).</p>

<p>I don’t always disagree with the liberal media. I do agree with a 2004 article by Daniel Okrent, the public editor of the New YorK Times. Here is an excerpt:</p>

<p>"I’ll get to the politics-and-policy issues this fall (I want to watch the campaign coverage before I conclude anything), but for now my concern is the flammable stuff that ignites the right. These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.</p>

<p>But if you’re examining the paper’s coverage of these subjects from a perspective that is neither urban nor Northeastern nor culturally seen-it-all; if you are among the groups The Times treats as strange objects to be examined on a laboratory slide (devout Catholics, gun owners, Orthodox Jews, Texans); if your value system wouldn’t wear well on a composite New York Times journalist, then a walk through this paper can make you feel you’re traveling in a strange and forbidding world."</p>

<p><a href=“http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E7D8173DF936A15754C0A9629C8B63&sec=&pagewanted=1[/url]”>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E7D8173DF936A15754C0A9629C8B63&sec=&pagewanted=1&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>Bill Kristol is the poor balance (as in “Fair and Balanced”) to Mara Liason. Charles Krauthammer happens to be the most logical person on TV or print, it must be his training as a doctor.</p>

<p>No one would dispute the fact that Charles Krauthammar is indeed brilliant. However, I would argue that Francis ***uyama appeared infinitely more “logical” to many observers of the discourse between the two on American foreign policy. Moreover, when Krauthammer referred to the Iraq war as "a virtually unqualified success,” it conjured up images of Bush landing on the aircraft carrier claiming “Mission Accomplished.” Even though Krauthammar isn’t a card-carrying member of “The World is Flat” neo-conservative gang behind the current administration, I think the guy has a screw loose. For example, he assigns virtually all of the blame to the Palestinians in the conflict with Israel. Tell that to the Europeans and the rest of the world Mr. Krauthammar.</p>

<p>I think he should stick to psychiatry. Have you ever known a psychiatrist/psychologist who wasn’t a little “over the edge” themselves? </p>

<p>Gotta keep up the readership.</p>