http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/03/AR2006110301462.html

Quote :

"Allen supporters think he can't catch a break; I sympathize. The macaca coverage went on too long, and a profile of Allen was relentlessly negative without balancing coverage of what made him a popular governor and senator."

Quote :

"In Maryland, profiles of Senate candidates -- Republican Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele and Rep. Benjamin L. Cardin, a Democrat -- were neutral to positive, as were those of the gubernatorial candidates, Democrat Martin O'Malley and incumbent Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R). I longed for a more critical eye, especially in the Cardin piece, which seemed relentlessly positive. Several readers thought Steele's profile should have mentioned that he flunked the bar exam, but a lot of folks do that. Pro-Steele readers were right to say The Post underplayed the story about several prominent black Prince George's County Democrats endorsing Steele. It was given one-column display on the Metro section front page."

Quote :

"Their complaints are valid. While Montgomery County is heavily Democratic, and Leggett is favored to win, waiting until after the election to run the profile would have been far fairer."

Quote :

"Another issue is pictures. McLean reader Bill Crosby complained about Oct. 30 photos. "As is frequently the case with The Post, the Republican [Allen] is shown looking grim and the Democrat [Webb] is shown looking cheerful, confident, smiling. Go to B4, you will find a photo of O'Malley smiling, looking chipper, one of Cardin, smiling, and one of Ehrlich , looking grim. Whoever picks the photographs before elections always seems to find the worst possible photographs for the Republicans and the best possible photographs for the Democrats.""

Now, when the ombudsman herself admits bias (ha! independent my ass) you know its bad

11/6/2006 2:41:18 AM

It's the truth, and it has been as such for a very long time. At least they have the integrity to come out and admit what the people saw as obvious. The more we get them to admit it, the better chance we have to see them reform into actual tools of free speech and not mouthpieces for the left. and you people wonder why we need worldnetdaily and newsmax? these guys are admitting they are biased!

11/6/2006 3:03:09 AM

This fiasco has been going on for years. A poll taken around 1995 showed that 89 percent of a sample of Washington political reporters and bureau chiefs voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only 7 percent voted for the first George Bush.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/october96/bias_10-28.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1172957/posts

Same old liberal bullshit, different election cycle.

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 5:28 AM. Reason : Link]

11/6/2006 5:27:53 AM

What next, Rush will admit bias? ....

11/6/2006 7:36:32 AM

Wow, shocked.

Personally, I wish all news organizations would admit their bias. I think it would be a good thing. If the Washington Post for example wrote a critical piece on Democrats, you would take it more at face value. Likewise if Fox News had a critical piece on Republicans.

The entire idea that news organizations are apolitical is old hat and impossible based on how liberal and conservative journalists and the two parties operate nowadays.

11/6/2006 8:56:02 AM

isn't this a bit like lance bass admitting he was gay?

11/6/2006 9:12:54 AM

lol, hahaha

11/6/2006 9:36:18 AM

so does this prove that the media is liberal?

all the backstreet boys must also be gay right?

11/6/2006 9:40:26 AM

Yes and yes

(lol, just kidding)

No it doesn't prove that all the media is liberal, but it reminds us to be at least skeptical that any media source can be 100% unbiased. And we should be skeptical that any boy-band member is 100% not gay.

11/6/2006 9:56:20 AM

^ i agree with you but statements such as this give Randy and everyone like him this belief that their shit doesnt stink.

Quote :

"and you people wonder why we need worldnetdaily and newsmax? these guys are admitting they are biased!"

and if im reading this correctly, this is no different than John Stewart pulling the "oh well its a comedy show" number.

11/6/2006 10:08:18 AM

All things have some type of bias, it becomes a problem though when it's done in a dishonest way (like Fox News).

11/6/2006 10:40:49 AM

moron, what makes foxnews dishonest as opposed to the washington post on every day except the day this article was written?

The side of the aisle?

11/6/2006 10:59:05 AM

I'm referring to the study that showed that Fox News viewers had more misconceptions about Iraq than any other news source.

There's ample proof that their commentators at least will say blatantly false things.

I'm sure their print/online reporting is more clean though.

[Edited on November 6, 2006 at 11:22 AM. Reason : ]

11/6/2006 11:21:24 AM

Quote :

"what makes foxnews dishonest as opposed to the washington post on every day except the day this article was written?"

So which of them has the slogan "Fair and Balanced?"

11/6/2006 11:48:05 AM

I only get my news from John Stewert. He has no bias.

11/6/2006 12:26:21 PM

you should watch jon stewart

11/6/2006 12:28:19 PM

Quote :

"I'm referring to the study that showed that Fox News viewers had more misconceptions about Iraq than any other news source. "

Because the study itself was biased, mr. genius.

11/6/2006 12:46:58 PM

Quote :

"So which of them has the slogan "Fair and Balanced?""

Well FoxNews does. But then again, a newspaper is implicitly supposed to be unbiased. The word NEWS, derived simply from North East West and South shouldn't be swayed by opinion.

Also, I find flaws with that study too. For instance, chemical weapons were found inside Iraq. They were old and shitty, but they were found. However, in that study, they counted you as being incorrect if you said the U.S. found weapons of mass distruction in Iraq. Technically, they did, so how is that a misconception?

Studies need more specific quesitons if they want to find out specific answers. Now they could have asked "Did the U.S. find nuclear weapons in Iraq" and the answer would be "No"

11/6/2006 3:30:48 PM

There exists a media outlet that has liberal bias.
---------------------------------------------
All media outlets have liberal bias.



Hmm...

11/6/2006 3:37:06 PM

people think they found the holy grail or some shit

11/6/2006 4:38:01 PM

The media has to be somewhat liberal by nature of its mission

News is the publication of events and facts....which expands collective societal knowledge.... which is a catalyst for reform and change, neither of which are goals of the conservative movement

11/6/2006 11:15:19 PM

^ Bullshit, apologist. Not so-called progressive change, that's for sure.

11/7/2006 12:35:34 AM

want to substantiate that assertion, big mouth?

11/7/2006 12:48:22 AM

well giving people news is extremely liberal inthe classical sense of the word.

11/7/2006 12:52:41 AM

^^ What, that you're an apologist for the liberal media or that reform and change are not goals of the conservative movement or that conservatives do not support so-called progressive change? One or all?

11/7/2006 1:08:24 AM

this just helps prove that the liberal bias of journalism is alive and well...

its a journalist's job to be well informed...

well informed people tend to vote liberal

11/7/2006 1:12:40 AM

^ That old canard? Keep telling yourself that shit, supercrack-smoker. And if you believe really hard, maybe Tinker Bell will come back, too.

11/7/2006 1:34:10 AM

To be an apologist means that I would first have to be apologizing for some pretend transgression that you have postulated.

But I would like to see how you would paint conservatism as a progressive movement.

11/7/2006 1:34:39 AM

journalists also tend to be more educated than the average republican... and better looking.

11/7/2006 1:53:57 AM

^ Concerning good looks, maybe the twinkies they put on camera, but not the print and radio people. And you have no proof of the former.

^^ And I'm not wasting any more of my time trying to explain a damn thing to you.

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 2:10 AM. Reason : ^]

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 2:11 AM. Reason : .]

11/7/2006 2:07:32 AM

Well since you have provided at least three horseshit responses without even a hint of knowledge of the topic we were discussing, we will consider you to be just another ignorant person who leans conservative because of a lack of thorough understanding of the issues.

Try using less "crack smoking, tinker bell or twinkie" in your arguments. You could have just come out and said you didn't know what you were talking about, instead of making us expend all this effort to figure that out for you.

Quote :

"^^ And I'm not wasting any more of my time trying to explain a damn thing to you."

I wasn't aware that you explained anything, other than how to make baseless, derogatory diatribes.

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 2:17 AM. Reason : .]

11/7/2006 2:13:17 AM

...and their penises are bigger by an average of 1.5"

11/7/2006 2:32:35 AM

Look, know-it-all, I'll use any words that I choose. If your liberal sensibilities are offended by the use of "crack smoking, tinker bell, or twinkie," tough shit. Free speech necessarily includes the right to offend--if such is the case. If you were so goddamned smart, you would know that.

Concerning the "progressiveness" of modern and true conservatism, it frees the individual from the tethers of the state by adopting, promoting, and advancing the models of entrepreneurialism and self-sufficiency. The so-called progressives seek to perpetually bind the initiative of the individual through the models of dependence on state entitlements, special rights, heavy taxation, and equal distribution of wealth. Get it? Of course you don’t, and you never will.

Concerning you as an apologist for the liberal news media, Scuba Steve, I think the point is self-evident.

Quote :

"The media has to be somewhat liberal by nature of its mission News is the publication of events and facts....which expands collective societal knowledge.... which is a catalyst for reform and change, neither of which are goals of the conservative movement"

In the abovementioned quotation, you clearly offered opinion on top of opinion as to what the news media is ("liberal by nature"); does ("publication of events and facts" and "expands collective societal knowledge"); and should be ("catalyst for reform and change"). I am unaware of any particular expertise you hold that allows you to define the news media and its intent. And in the context of questioning the news media, which is what this thread is about, and in the face of literal admissions by some news outlets of left-leaning bias, you offered a pithy defense that sure as hell looks like an apology to me--and would to any reasonable observer. Furthermore, the generally accepted definition of the news media makes no mention of intent and simply refers to newspapers, magazines, and so on as a collective.

By the way, Scuba Steve, thanks for the following quotation: "The media has to be somewhat liberal," which was my point and the point of the thread. The news media is liberal. QED.

You are obviously a lost cause. I will not respond to any of your ridiculous posts in the future.

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 3:15 AM. Reason : .]

11/7/2006 3:10:01 AM

what an insufferable cunt you are.

11/7/2006 3:18:07 AM

^^ It appears that if you want to know anything about dicks, supercracker is your guy.

11/7/2006 3:19:13 AM

^^ And fuck you thrice.

11/7/2006 3:20:05 AM

i'm sorry your team is going to lose tomorrow. i should take it easier on you.

11/7/2006 3:21:07 AM

YOU? Take it easy on me? Don't forget that I own you. I can take whatever trinket your ass dishes out, let me assure you.

Concerning your ridiculous "my team" remark, for the last fucking time: I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN AND I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN, YOU DUMB MOTHERFUCKERS! I just go with the lesser of two evils, so to speak. But don't be so sure about tomorrow; the CBS News tonight showed the polls as statistically even.

11/7/2006 3:32:07 AM

where did you own me again?

and you've been defending republicans up and down all night.

11/7/2006 3:34:37 AM

What the fuck is wrong with you trolls?

One of you assholes made the utterly false claim

Quote :

"well informed people tend to vote liberal"

without any substantiation and when he countered it with his own fakse claim, you attacked him for not substantiating it.

If you go and find a non-partisan study that says well-informed people tend to vote on way or the other, then we can entertain the motion, but you really have to stop the circle-jerk just because it suits your side of the aisle.

And its cute to think that media is inherently liberal because having news spread makes people liberal. How do you substantiate that while controlling for a liberal news bias. I mean, perhaps news doesn't make people liberal so much as liberal news makes people liberal.

You're all much smarter than you're acting in this thread. You know you can't make false assertions and get away with it. Stop acting like morons.

11/7/2006 7:23:25 AM

Quote :

"Concerning the "progressiveness" of modern and true conservatism, it frees the individual from the tethers of the state by adopting, promoting, and advancing the models of entrepreneurialism and self-sufficiency. The so-called progressives seek to perpetually bind the initiative of the individual through the models of dependence on state entitlements, special rights, heavy taxation, and equal distribution of wealth. Get it? Of course you don’t, and you never will."

I would have you pretty much named everything you hate and called it "progressiveness"

I wouldnt call my beliefs progressive and I think you completely missed the point

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 8:12 AM. Reason : !]

11/7/2006 8:12:35 AM

Kinda sucks that reality has a liberal bias.

11/7/2006 10:48:38 AM

What, you mean that everyone in the world isn't rich and white?

11/7/2006 11:11:44 AM

Quote :

"Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left. These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly. I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican,' said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. 'But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are.' 'Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left,' said co-author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar."

http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 11:31 AM. Reason : Link]

11/7/2006 11:31:14 AM

Quote :

"Kinda sucks that reality has a liberal bias. "

11/7/2006 11:32:16 AM

this is all objective.

Quote :

"just because the definition of a moderate has been placed firmly within the realm of conservativism creates the illusion that the real center is left of the "proposed" center."

now if that statement sounds ridiculous....it is and so is this thread and people who believe the media has a left or right bias.

11/7/2006 1:03:57 PM

Quote :

"Pretty short-sighted and ignorant to think reality has a liberal bias"

11/7/2006 1:09:03 PM

Quote :

"Kinda sucks that reality has a liberal bias."

No. Life has a very different bias that you might think, being a liberal and all.
Life has a bias towards incentives, which safety-net and socially progressive policies tend to overlook.

11/7/2006 1:14:18 PM

^ so what incentives do I have when I'm a slave or work as a serf for a landlord?

[Edited on November 7, 2006 at 1:17 PM. Reason : !!!!!!]

11/7/2006 1:15:42 PM

Reality has the bias of almighty God, who is, of course, an American Republican.

11/7/2006 1:16:37 PM