If anything, The Economist shows you how lazy and worthless the American media generally is.

I don't know that the media drives at a bias, but leftists generally outnumber rightists. From the American Journalist website (http://www.journalism.org/node/2304):

Quote :

"In the most recent survey, 40% of journalists described themselves as being on the left side of the political spectrum (31% said they were “a little to the left” and 9% “pretty far to the left”). But that number was down notably, seven percentage points from 1992, when 47% said they leaned leftward. The percentage of “middle of the roaders” moved up slightly to 33% in 2002 from 30% in 1992. And the number of journalists identifying themselves leaning toward the political right also inched up to 25% from 22% a decade earlier (20% “a little to the right” and 5% “pretty far to the right”)."

So the left has a plurality and I suspect (purely subjectively) that the middle of the roaders are further to the left than they suspect. Also, being as lazy as they are about finding actual facts, I suspect that their bias creeps in more than in a magazine like the E. Just mytwocents.

[Edited on July 11, 2007 at 6:23 PM. Reason : .]

7/11/2007 6:22:30 PM

JCASHFAN

I'd like to address the article that you linked to. First of all, one study by one university professor is far from conclusive considering the size of the U.S. media and the volume of news it has presented over the last 10 years. (I say the last 10 years because that was the span of the news that the study in your article looked at.) By the way, has this study been peer reviewed and had its results duplicated by other scientists? Second, there's this

Quote :

""A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches." "

So it took a Ph. D. in political science thinking outside the box to come up with the proper research method to finally "confirm" in 2005 that the news media has a liberal bias. Meanwhile, rightwingers have been complaining about "the liberal media" for as long as I can remember, which, to me proves that most of these people don't know what they're talking about.

Third, this guy's conclusion that the news media has a liberal bias comes from the fact that they use liberal think tanks and speeches from liberal politicians as their sources more often than conservative ones. How does this guy know -- and how do you know, for that matter -- that they choose these liberal sources for their liberal views? Anyone who's ever written a research paper knows that when you have multiple sources that have the information you're looking for, you pick the source with more or better information. So maybe liberal sources just happen to be better sources. And since it's the media we're talking about, maybe the liberal sources are more presentable to Joe Public than conservative ones. Maybe the mild-mannered well-spoken Democratic senator from Massachussets is more presentable to the average viewer than the Republican senator from Alabama who has a thick Southern accent, uses expressions like "y'all" and "them thur" and is abrasive in the way he words things. It's like you said, whether or not the media has a liberal bias, it has, first and foremost a money bias.

7/12/2007 9:54:46 AM

You make some good points, and it is very hard to find a reliable source to draw from. Let me make it clear that I don't believe a bunch of old men are chomping cigars around a circular table under low-level fluorescent lighting determining how they can slant the media. I do think that the overwhelmingly liberal culture of the journalistic world leads to a shift in perception. When everyone you work with approaches the world the same way you do, your perception of reality will shift.

Want evidence?

Quote :

"In March and April 2005, the University of Connecticut’s Department of Public Policy surveyed 300 journalists nationwide — 120 who worked in the television industry and 180 who worked at newspapers and asked for whom they voted in the 2004 presidential election . . . the journalists they surveyed selected Democratic challenger John Kerry over incumbent Republican President George W. Bush by a wide margin, 52 percent to 19 percent (with 1 percent choosing far-left independent candidate Ralph Nader). One out of five journalists (21 percent) refused to disclose their vote, while another six percent either didn’t vote or said they did not know for whom they voted."

Breaking that down, and assuming that those voters who refused to answer voted along the same lines as those who did, Democratic voters outnumbered Republicans 66% to 24%, or nearly 3:1 (2.75:1 actually).

next . . .

Quote :

"the Annenberg Public Policy Center and the Annenberg Foundation Trust at Sunnylands commissioned a poll of 673 journalists, including 424 from newspapers, 48 from broadcast and cable networks, 47 from top-50-market local television stations, 45 from Web sites, 41 from other television stations, 26 from national radio networks, 18 from wire services, 14 from top-50-market local radio stations and 10 from magazines. The surveys were conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates between March 7 and May 2, 2005, with the results released on May 24, 2005. The poll asked questions on journalistic ethics and about journalists’ views on issues and overall ideology . . . A total of 31 percent described themselves as “very liberal” or “liberal” compared to just nine percent who identified themselves as “very conservative” or “conservative,” with 49 percent maintaining they are “moderate.”"

31:9 Granted, 49% classify themselves as moderates, but assuming either that a) they can be divided right to left roughly along the same lines as the voters above could, or b) they have no effect on the balance of the news and thus we're left with the more "opinionated" groups, you get the same basic effect. I'm not sure how anyone can argue that working in that kind of environment is not going to change your perception.

Quote :

"Anyone who's ever written a research paper knows that when you have multiple sources that have the information you're looking for, you pick the source with more or better information. So maybe liberal sources just happen to be better sources."

Precisely, if you approach the world with a liberal bias, this is going to be your perception (right or wrong).

Quote :

"maybe the liberal sources are more presentable to Joe Public than conservative ones. Maybe the mild-mannered well-spoken Democratic senator from Massachusetts is more presentable to the average viewer than the Republican senator from Alabama who has a thick Southern accent, uses expressions like "y'all" and "them thur" and is abrasive in the way he words things."

Considering that the last north-eastern Democrat to win the Presidency was JFK, I disagree. Clearly, the nation does not prefer north-eastern liberals. Johnson, Carter, Clinton and (by popular vote) Gore on the other hand did well at least once. Ted Kennedy, Charles Schumer, (pre-primary) Hillary Clinton and Al Sharpton are hardly "non-abrasive".

Quote :

"It's like you said, whether or not the media has a liberal bias, it has, first and foremost a money bias."

Yup, it is hard to find good investigative reporting because the editors aren't going to let the journalists bite the hand that feeds the bottom line. Advertisers make the station money and they're not going to upset them.

[Edited on July 12, 2007 at 12:37 PM. Reason : ([b])]

7/12/2007 12:35:14 PM

Quote :

"Breaking that down, and assuming that those voters who refused to answer voted along the same lines as those who did"

I wouldn't be so sure about that if I were you because
1) According to your own statistics conservative journalists are far outnumbered in their workplaces by liberals. Now think about this, if you were a lone conservative in a workplace full of liberals and someone from outside your workplace asked you about your political affiliation for a survey of political views in your workplace, wouldn't you use that as your chance to speak out? Well, maybe you wouldn't because you aren't the type of person to do that, but don't you think it's possible that a person who is greatly outnumbered by people holding an opposing view would be more likely to speak out about it than a person whose view is in the majority?
2) Please don't take this the wrong way, but my experience indicates that conservatives are more likely to express their political views around people who don't necessarily want to listen than liberals. Again, this is just my experience and I don't have any statistics or anything to confirm this. On top of that, I may have a confirmation bias on that issue since I'm a liberal myself, so what I just said may be complete bullshit. However, this is an opinion I have formed from my experience and it is one of the reasons I question your assumption.

Quote :

"Democratic voters outnumbered Republicans 66% to 24%, or nearly 3:1 (2.75:1 actually)."

Voting Democrat in a Presidential election does not necessarily make a person a liberal in this case. Keep in mind how much time and energy both Bush and Kerry spent on courting swing voters back in '04. My point is that of the 66% who voted for Kerry, some are moderates (see below for my opinion of how they affect the news media), and some are swing voters. In the case of the latter, their views change over the course of their journalistic careers so they are irrelevant in this discussion.

Quote :

"31:9 Granted, 49% classify themselves as moderates, but assuming either that a) they can be divided right to left roughly along the same lines as the voters above could, or b) they have no effect on the balance of the news and thus we're left with the more "opinionated" groups, you get the same basic effect. I'm not sure how anyone can argue that working in that kind of environment is not going to change your perception. "

IMO whether these moderates fall slightly to the left or slightly to the right off center doesn't matter in this situation because the key word here is still "slightly." They are not far enough off center for their views to affect the viewers' perception. With that said, only 31% of journalists described themselves as liberal, so they weren't even close to being a majority. That hardly proves that the media has a liberal bias.

Quote :

"Precisely, if you approach the world with a liberal bias, this is going to be your perception (right or wrong)."

I am not a journalist and I've never recieved any training as one, but I would imagine that when you major in journalism in college, you receive some instruction on how to view information objectively and, therefore, how to put your personal bias aside and look at your sources objectively for their quality rather than whether or not they fall in live with your personal views. I could be wrong, though.

Quote :

"Considering that the last north-eastern Democrat to win the Presidency was JFK, I disagree. Clearly, the nation does not prefer north-eastern liberals. Johnson, Carter, Clinton and (by popular vote) Gore on the other hand did well at least once. Ted Kennedy, Charles Schumer, (pre-primary) Hillary Clinton and Al Sharpton are hardly "non-abrasive". "

Okay, I concede, that was a bad example. However, by focusing on that example, you missed the point I was trying to make which was the following: Let's say there is a mainstream media outlet called Mainstream News Network (MNN). Whenever MNN reports a story, they have the option of using one of two sources, either the People United for Tolerance, Understanding, and Granola (PUTUG), a liberal source, or Foundation for Jesus, Oil, and Guns (FJOG), a conservative source. According to the article you originally linked, BNN has chosen the liberal PUTUG more than the conservative FJOG over the last ten years. The argument I was trying to make is how do you know -- and how does this UCLA professor who did the study know -- that MNN keeps choosing PUTUG because of that group's liberal views and not for some other reasons?

In other words, how do you know the mainstream media outlets are more likely to chose liberal sources because these sources are liberal and not for some other reasons? Maybe liberal sources just happen to have more in depth information more often. Maybe the news people find the way liberal sources word things more quotable than the way conservative sources do. Or maybe liberal sources are more likely to have information that the news people can sensationalize and turn into TV ratings and newspaper/magazine sales. Who knows?

One thing is for sure, though, there is a big difference between saying that news people are more likely to choose liberal sources and saying that news people prefer liberal sources because these sources fall inline with their own views. The same argument can be made about mainstream news outlets being more likely to quote liberal politicians than conservative ones.

The bottom line is this: I'll admit that you have shown me that there are a lot more liberal journalists than conservative ones (no big surprise there, to be honest with you -- liberal arts majors generally make me, a stereotypical left-leaning Jew, look like a heartland conservative ), you haven't even convinced me that the majority of journalists in mainstream news media are liberal. I'll also admit -- at the cost of stating the obvious -- that journalists are human, so I am sure their bias, whether liberal, conservative, or whatever else, affects their reporting somewhat. But they are also professionals, so I am confident that they know how to keep their personal bias away from their job function. There may be a small amount of liberal bias in the mainstream news media but the people who froth at the mouth* ranting about "OMG!! THE LIBERAL MEDIA!!" typically try to paint a picture of a bunch of "latte drinking east coast elitists" sitting in a boardroom talking about how they can make Republicans look bad that day. So far I have yet to see one iota of evidence that that picture is anything but a load of hogshit.

* I never said that you, JCASHFAN, were one of those people, and your posts certainly suggest that you aren't. However, there are people like that on TWW, and they know who they are.

7/13/2007 12:14:17 AM

The media doesn't have a liberal or conservative bias. It has a corporate bias.

7/13/2007 2:14:47 AM

^ Bullshit. In addition, Katie Couric slaps people around.

Katie Couric, CBS Anchor, Stressed, Slaps Editor Over 'Sputum'

Quote :

"'During the tuberculosis story in June, Couric got angry with news editor Jerry Cipriano for using a word she detested- "sputum" -and the staff grew tense when she began slapping him "over and over and over again" on the arm, according to a source familiar with the scene. It had seemed like a joke at first, but it quickly became clear that she wasn't kidding.'"

http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21291036.shtml

7/13/2007 2:53:57 AM

Americans See Liberal Media Bias on TV News

Quote :

"By a 39% to 20% margin, American adults believe that the three major broadcast networks deliver news with a bias in favor of liberals. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 25% believe that ABC, CBS, and NBC deliver the news without any bias. Similar results are found for CNN and National Public Radio (NPR). By a margin of 33% to 16%, Americans say that CNN has a liberal bias. The nation’s adults say the same about NPR by a 27% to 14% margin. There is one major exception to the belief that media outlets have a liberal bias—Fox News. Thirty-one percent (31%) of Americans say it has a bias that favors conservatives while 15% say it has a liberal bias."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/americans_see_liberal_media_bias_on_tv_news

7/18/2007 12:30:08 AM

Quote :

"15% say [Fox News] has a liberal bias."

Im calling fucking shenanigans on this poll.

and i'm automatically deducting 15% from the "liberal" column for all the rest of the outlets.

and dont fucking critique my math because this whole goddamned thread is a huge pile of retardation, with the previous post (^) being the retarded fucking cherry on top.

obligatory

7/18/2007 12:47:44 AM

^ Yeah, whatever.

Quote :

"Rasmussen Reports is pleased that our online audience includes roughly equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats."

Quote :

"Rasmussen Reports is an electronic publishing firm specializing in the collection, publication, and distribution of public opinion polling information. The Rasmussen Reports ElectionEdge™ Premium Service for Election 2008 offers the most comprehensive public opinion coverage ever provided for a Presidential election. Rasmussen Reports’ Election 2006 coverage has been praised for its accuracy and reliability. Michael Barone, Senior Writer for U.S. News & World Report and co-author of The Almanac of American Politics, mentions, 'One clear lesson from the Republican victory of 2004 and the Democratic victory of 2006 is that the best place to look for polls that are spot on is RasmussenReports.com.' And University of Virginia Professor Larry Sabato states, 'In election campaigns, I’ve learned to look for the Rasmussen results. In my experience, they are right on the money. There is no question Rasmussen produces some of the most accurate and reliable polls in the country today.' Rasmussen Reports was also the nation's most accurate polling firm during the 2004 Presidential election and the only one to project both Bush and Kerry's vote total within half a percentage point of the actual outcome. During both Election 2004 and Election 2006, RasmussenReports.com was the top-ranked public opinion research site on the web. We had twice as many visitors as our nearest competitor and nearly as many as all competitors combined. Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/americans_see_liberal_media_bias_on_tv_news

Quote :

"Slate magazine cited Rasmussen as the most accurate pollster of Election 2004."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmussen_Reports

[Edited on July 18, 2007 at 2:05 AM. Reason : .]

7/18/2007 2:00:08 AM

this is an ONLINE poll. its not a scientific sample for one thing. but besides that, where is their raw poll data and methodology? i looked for it. where are they hiding it?

(Perhaps, it might have been hiding behind the "Vote for Newt" Newsmax advertisement that took up half the center screen)

look, you show me their raw data (not massaged synopses and self-serving propaganda from their own webpages) ... and i'll use their data to show you that Fox is far more biased than CNN/ABC/NPR/etc.




[Edited on July 18, 2007 at 2:15 AM. Reason : ]

7/18/2007 2:11:14 AM

I think there is some stuff that Oreily says which is downright liberal. Gun control, death penalty, gas gouging for examples. Fox News covers pretty much the same news cycle as the other cable news networks, the focus of that cycle is at times inherently left leaning. For example, Cindy Sheehan is nobdy, she doesn't deserve any amount of media attention, there are real stories to cover.

I think Fox is more or less moderate in their politics, they ask hard questions to both sides. They are of course sensationalist, any story with some sex or some weird violence is going to get mentioned like every 5 minutes until you want to hit the TV with a sledge hammer. But, if a republican contradicts himself you can bet they are going to call him on it, because it makes good ratings. Who wants to watch journalists feign respect for these polticians? I don't, they don't deserve respect, they deserve questions.

7/18/2007 5:36:07 PM

the other day i was on foxnew and i clicked on a story link about middle east updates

and the story link was to abc news

do they do this a lot?

7/18/2007 5:42:08 PM

^^^ Wrong on all points--as usual. You certainly didn't look very hard because the "methodology" was listed at the bottom of the page.

Quote :

"The Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of 1,433 adults was conducted on July 11-12, 2007. The margin of sampling error for the full sample is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence."

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/americans_see_liberal_media_bias_on_tv_news



[Edited on July 18, 2007 at 8:48 PM. Reason : .]

7/18/2007 8:46:13 PM

Didn't read a thing in this thread but there was the report a couple weeks ago that showed political party financial contributions of members of the media and it was heavily slanted towards the left.

There was also the BBC tidbits from their self-review where they admitted a lean to the left and a tendency to be hostile towards (I think) conservatives, America, and the Church.

7/18/2007 10:43:06 PM

aha on fox news front page right now

7/19/2007 3:40:08 PM

lol

nice find

7/19/2007 4:02:36 PM

^ Yeah, "lol" at the dinosaur image instead of acknowledging how wrong you were about Rasmussen. GG!

7/21/2007 2:55:46 AM

"Conspicuously absent": joe_shithead.

7/23/2007 1:12:33 AM

Okay, the Rasmussen poll cited is scientific. I wont argue that. i misread something and thought it was an online poll.

but their analysis and headline is sensational and misleading, pandering to self-congratulatory conservatives who want to
attach a sinister agenda to everything to support their belief in the inherent evils of liberalism.

so... you've proved that the traditional news media is be "perceived" to be somewhat more liberal than they are conservative,
yes. no surprise there.

but if you're going to use "perception" as a metric, then FOX news is the MOST BIASED of all. and NPR, in fact, is
the LEAST BIASED of all.

which was my orignal point:

Quote :

"joe_schmoe : i'll use their data to show you that Fox is far more biased than CNN/ABC/NPR/etc."

for starters, if you want to talk about perception in an "opinion poll", you have to remove the data for which the respondents
have "no opinion" or "don't know". so we need to normalize the opinion poll data to exclude those without an opinion.





this result shows that NPR is the most "fair and evenly balanced" of all the news outlets listed





since the real question here is bias, and which direction is the media outlets biased, we then have to consider only
those respondents who perceive a bias in some direction. Because if, for instance, 50% thought News Channel A was "fair",
25% thought they were "liberal" and 25% thought they were "conservative"... that would by all accounts indicate an overall
"fair and balanced" reporting... its only when more people think a reporter leans one direction rather than another, that the
reporter might realistically be considered biased to some extent.

when we consider only those who perceive a bias in one direction and weigh them against all of those who perceive
a bias in either direction, we can get the "magnitude" of bias, as a "differential skew"





which shows clearly that FOX has the most heavily skewed bias of all the news outlets listed, and furthermore, that
NPR, once again, has the least amount of overall bias


Q.E.D., bitch.

7/24/2007 1:36:22 PM

snarky reply

bold type

italics

roll eyes

7/24/2007 1:47:26 PM

^^ That's an accurate analysis of their data, but their data really isn't good enough to being with for it to be meaningful.

7/24/2007 1:55:34 PM

^ jesus christ dude...you make that in 97 excel

7/24/2007 1:57:37 PM

^^ their data is a scientific poll. but the poll itself is about "people's perception" so... no, its not a quantitative measurement of actual bias. just perceived bias.

still if hooksaw wants to present this poll as his best evidence of bias, i'll show that it truly IS evidence of bias... evidence that FOX NEWS is the MOST BIASED, and that NPR is actually the LEAST BIASED.

^ huh? i used excel 2002. so what, this isn't rocket science.



[Edited on July 24, 2007 at 2:14 PM. Reason : ]

7/24/2007 2:12:19 PM

I'm kind of amazed anyone could think Fox is remotely liberal.

7/24/2007 2:19:33 PM

yeah, at first glance it's strange to me too.

but when you look at the representative sample weights, you see how the magintude of skew shows FOX to be overwhelmingly more biased than NPR, or even ABC/NBC/CBS.







[Edited on July 24, 2007 at 3:00 PM. Reason : ]

7/24/2007 2:56:25 PM

maybe thats because there is only one conservative news channel in the country and they need to make up lost ground

7/24/2007 3:11:49 PM

^ good job, jccraft. you win the douchebag comment of the week.

you're the guy who ran the wrong way and scored a touchdown for the other team, didnt you?

Quote :

"-- <-- Hi I'm Fox News. I'm "Fair and Balanced". You can see how "Fair and Balanced" I am due to my prominently displayed logo. See? The subtitle right there: "Fair and Balanced". -- <-- um, hi, Fox. I'm an independent pollster. Apparently you are the least fair and most biased of all the major news sources. -- <-- goddammit look here you terrorist loving freedom hater. Don't you see I have to swing wide to the right to make up for all the liberal gobbledygook your faggotty liberal "lamestream" media spews out???!!! "

[Edited on July 24, 2007 at 6:13 PM. Reason : ]

7/24/2007 6:10:03 PM

"QED," joe_shithead? That's fucking hilarious. So, you're position is that qualitative data is useless, correct?

7/24/2007 6:46:05 PM

Quote :

"Q.E.D. is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase "quod erat demonstrandum" (literally, "which was to be demonstrated"). The use of this phrase therefore announces the completion of a proof of a previously asserted claim."

so, yes:

Quote :

"Q.E.D., bitch."

now address the topic at hand, or are you just going to play the distraction game on petty grammar and semantics, because you got your ass handed to you once again?

7/24/2007 6:53:46 PM

^ You have never won an argument with me and you fucking know it, joe_shithead.

Once again for the feeble-minded:

Quote :

"'QED,' joe_shithead? That's fucking hilarious. So, your position is that qualitative data is useless, correct?"

BTW, I'm glad that you looked up "QED." It's nice to see you learning new terms.

7/24/2007 11:36:58 PM

Quote :

"now address the topic at hand, or are you just going to play the distraction game on petty grammar and semantics, because you got your ass handed to you once again?"

7/25/2007 12:51:49 AM

Quote :

"'QED,' joe_shithead? That's fucking hilarious. So, your position is that qualitative data is useless, correct?"

If necessary, I can do this for a long time.

7/25/2007 12:56:37 AM

you're really pathetic.

unless you wish to quit playing obtuse semantic games, this is over.

I win.

7/25/2007 1:13:10 AM

Quote :

"'QED,' joe_shithead? That's fucking hilarious. So, your position is that qualitative data is useless, correct?"

7/25/2007 1:39:31 AM

no, of course not, dickshit. now, go ahead, astound me with your latest semantic trick. i can see you're just dying to try it out.

7/25/2007 12:15:00 PM

Quote :

"which shows clearly that FOX has the most heavily skewed bias of all the news outlets listed, and furthermore, that NPR, once again, has the least amount of overall bias"

That is correct. However what is also correct is that CNN has nearly the same amount of bias as FOX. Also the bigger point that you failed to mention was that the majority of news sources have liberal bias. FOX has a conservative bias. NPR, CNN, CBS, NBC, and ABC have a liberal bias.

Q.E.D., bitch.

7/25/2007 12:39:08 PM

^ Nope

The data that hooksaw posted and that joe_schmoe analized shows the perceived bias of those news outlets, not the real bias. I have still not seen any proff that there is a significant liberal bias in the news media.

[Edited on July 25, 2007 at 1:50 PM. Reason : .]

7/25/2007 1:50:00 PM

Quote :

"the perceived bias of those news outlets, not the real bias"

bias is based on perception so explain to me how there is a difference

7/25/2007 1:57:53 PM

People can think you're biased because they themselves are biased. For example, I think you're a woman because you have bitch tits and long hair. Despite this fact you are a man because you have the correct male anatomy.

So the content of their news vs. reality would be a way to measure their bias, though studies showing bias themselves are subject to bias as well most likely.

I mean you could say, 'well let's look at how many stories they run that show negative aspects of the war vs. positive.' but that is flawed because there simply may be MORE negative news than positive, and any news network that shows more positive than negative in this situation is either ignoring the negative news or working really hard to show positive aspects, which would put them in an obvious bias for the war.

bias is a really hard concept to put numbers on and anything you see that does put numbers on it is probably severely flawed in some aspect.

7/25/2007 2:13:21 PM

"What liberal media?" How about The New Republic and growing concern that the political magazine fabricated stories from the "Baghdad Diarist"?

Doubts Raised on Magazine's 'Baghdad Diarist'
By LOUISE STORY
Published: July 24, 2007

Quote :

"Just who is the 'Baghdad Diarist'? It is a question that many people are asking The New Republic, the Washington political magazine that has been running articles attributed to an American soldier in Baghdad. The author, who used the pen name Scott Thomas, has written three articles for the magazine since February, describing gruesome incidents in Iraq. Last week, The Weekly Standard questioned the veracity of the New Republic articles and invited readers with knowledge about the military or Baghdad to comment. Since then, several readers and a spokesman for the base where the soldier is supposedly based have written in, raising more questions. 'Absolutely every piece of information that's come out since we put that call up has cast further doubt on that story,' said Michael Goldfarb, the online editor of The Weekly Standard. 'There's not a single person that has come forward and said, "It sounds plausible.""

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/business/media/24mag.html?bl&ex=1185422400&en=978813ecc5b84a95&ei=5087%0A

7/25/2007 11:54:34 PM

and where are you reading the report about that? oh yeah that commie rag the ny times.

7/25/2007 11:59:35 PM

Quote :

"you're really pathetic. unless you wish to quit playing obtuse semantic games, this is over. I win."

Hooksaw has absolutely no math ability. There's no way he can respond to you.

It's kind of sad really, instead of being able to interpret raw data himself, he's stuck regurgitating other peoples' thoughts. In a way, I feel bad for people like him. Engineers FTW.

7/26/2007 12:00:33 AM

^ LOL! Yeah, that's how I made it to graduate school. Keep fooling yourself, you fucking troll.

^^ You really should STFU. I could have posted this story from Fox News days ago--but you fucking howlers would have howled, "Oh, the horror!" So I used The New York Times, which finally printed their story on this situation on July 24.

BTW, CBS News buried in its newscast the record-high Dow-Jones closing this week--while reading the story, Katie Couric looked as if she had a rotten fish in her mouth. In stark contrast, when the Dow made a one-day downward correction a couple of days ago, it was the lead story--and Couric breathlessly delivered the "bad news" with a suspiciously perky gleam in her eye.

I'm sure no bias was involved there.

7/26/2007 3:41:49 AM

I'm not really understanding the arguments here either. So fox news shows to be the most perceived bias station in the country...who cares? There are several liberal bias channels out there where you can get a different view of the stories. Flip back and forth, or stay on one channel for all I care. The more info from all the stations the better.

7/26/2007 11:34:42 AM

it's really the same information

they mine the same sources and skew it differently according to profit margins

7/26/2007 11:36:42 AM

Quote :

"LOL! Yeah, that's how I made it to graduate school. Keep fooling yourself, you fucking troll."

Ha ha, I don't have to fool myself, the facts are all over this message board about the way you post.

7/26/2007 11:56:57 AM

^ What're you, a sixth-year senior?

7/26/2007 5:07:55 PM

aha new story on fox news front page

8/7/2007 12:34:47 PM

Mark Halperin, political director of ABC News, admits liberal bias--sort of:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cSFYNyZmaX0

AP called out for liberal bias:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=biLUK1VExy0&mode=related&search=

Several examples of liberal media bias given in this video clip:

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?081607/081607_views_oreilly&OReilly_Factor_Talking_Points&Talking%20Points%20Memo&acc&Bill%20O%26%2339%3BReilly&-1&Opinion&228&&&col

8/20/2007 7:35:16 PM

Anti-War Agenda

Quote :

"Media: CNBC and MSNBC have refused to air educational commercials that support the war in Iraq. That's their privilege. And it's our privilege to point out the networks' rank hypocrisy. The commercials were created by Freedom's Watch, a new tax-exempt advocacy group. Its $15 million campaign includes at least four ads it wants to run in 20 states through mid-September. They feature Iraq War veterans, some of them wounded, and military families, some whose loved ones have died in the war. The goal is to provide a view of the war that old-line media don't care to report and to urge Congress not to give up on the troops. So far Fox and CNN have aired the commercials. But CNBC and MSNBC won't touch them. Bradley Blakeman, president and CEO of Freedom's Watch, has written John Kelly, senior vice president for NBC News' network sales, asking why and requesting an 'explanation of your basis in writing or station policy.' 'It is our understanding,' Blakeman says, 'that the purported basis for the denial is a network policy denying access to groups that wish to sponsor advertising on controversial issues of public importance.' Then he points out that that NBC has a 'recent history of airing such ads.' There's been no response, but none is necessary. The real reason the networks are refusing is clear: The spots are at odds with their position on the war. Consider the daily diatribes of two of the networks' highest-profile stars. CNBC is home to Chris Matthews, former Democratic staffer who barely lets a day go by on 'Hardball' without paying homage to Hillary Clinton. MSNBC reserves a prime-time slot for Keith Olbermann, poster boy if there ever was one for Bush Derangement Syndrome. Matthews is always full of bluster but clearly the milder of the two. Still, he has described the war as 'the Alamo' and a 'catastrophe,' opined that Bush was led into it by 'jugheaded neoconservatives,' claimed the administration has waged a campaign of misinformation, and once raised the possibility that 'we know more than (Bush) knows' about what's going on in Iraq. Olbermann uses his pulpit on 'Countdown' to deliver unhinged commentary that has included calls for Bush's impeachment, tirades about the 'lies and terror tactics with which (the White House) deluded this country into war,' shrieks about a "'riminal lack of planning,' and demands that the president 'go there and fight, your war, yourself.' When Olbermann isn't bellowing about the war, he's busy referring to Bush is the 'worst president ever.' Plenty of time at CNBC and MSNBC, in other words, to condemn the war and attack the president, but none to let a small group express its feelings through a paid ad. And they found time, as well, for commercials from conservative Move America Forward, the political American Medical Association and the nonprofit Save Darfur Coalition. Freedom's Watch has been dismissed by ABC News as a 'sort of shadow White House communications shop' driven by GOP money that's 'emerged to help the beleaguered president sell his unpopular war' to America. But the group is no less legitimate than Moveon.org, and its funding is no more questionable than that of, say, Clinton's presidential campaign. Think CNBC and MSNBC would refuse ads from them?"

http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=273280491902284

Is there really any question that there is liberal bias at NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC?

9/6/2007 1:13:24 AM