" You are going to have to restate the question for me. I thought I did answer it ".
If the media is ether controlled or strongly biased by liberals as you claim then how is it so much attention was given to the Clinton sex scandal? This was the number one story everywhere for a very long time.
The logical thing would have been to tone this down. There was no such action taken. It was not subtle or slight. It went on for a better part of a year.
This didn't happen after he lied to the American people. It was that way from the start. I contend that the logical course of action taken by the media ( if they were bias ) would have been to try to gloss this over. It didn't happen. The media was in a frenzy. " ballistic " was the term you used I believe. I believe this is because what the media portrays for us is motivated by their desire to sell copy or improve rateings. They do editorialize and slant the news. Not because they are bias for liberals but because they bias for themselves.
This is a hole in your logic stating that the media is ether bias or the implication of control by liberals. If they are bias then how could this have happened? Liberals everywhere knew this would have an effect on the next election. Why all the focus? I'm sure there are liberals on any news staff. It's just that they aren't what strongly influences their content.
This is the question and a sample of what's been discussed since.
Well, that is a provoking contention. But, I would argue (and it would be quite difficult to prove or disprove this) that the media reported the story, but also interjected the "sex doesn't matter angle" through polling of Americans, commentators, debate, etc. It is this intrinsic bias that people miss. It isn't always about downplaying a story (though that seems to be a tactic as well).
I still don't think the assumption that the media would have ignored the problem if it was run by liberals is a valid one. They did, in fact, downplay various angles and emphasize others (e.g. "sex should be private" or "the popular President said today....." and "the republican leadership today continued its assault...." )
These are all simliar quotes to what was actually said by some news networks during the incident. I also don't think that determining whether or not the media is biased to the left, based on one issue is a valid procedure.
Let us not forget that there were very staunch defenders of what the President did. In addition, the whole thing was quite huge in stature. A President lying directly to the American people? A President willfully deceiving a grand jury? Sex INSIDE the oval office on the people's dime (and time)? These are all a little to big too ignore. To suggest that the press wouldn't have covered it if they were liberally biased is perhaps a provoking suggestion, but that is about all. I don't think it holds water given the magnitude of the situation.
Remember, in the Watergate scandal it was, finally, the Republican leadership that went to Nixon and told him he needed to consider resigning. Even the liberal media couldn't ignore Clinton's unbelievable antics, which stretched back some 20 years. Even THEY could not simply ignore it. Not sexual acts with a whitehouse intern inside the oval office, concealed by blatant lies and a cavalier attitude about the whole thing. Not even them.
In any case, your argument is nullfied by what I posted earlier above. Even if you could somehow prove that there WASN'T liberal bias during the Clinton scandal(s), that wouldn't reflect on the media over a long period of time, say, 25 years.
I would further argue that there was quite a motivation for the media to cover the republican assault, which many Americans also didn't agree with). That too, could damage a political party, one with whom most of the media disagrees.
This is a very moot argument anyway. Liberal bias in the media is a well documented occurence. And, the damning statistic, for the fourth time, is that it votes 9 to 1 democratic. That is hard number. It can't be spun. What is your answer to that?
My answer to that is how could they let that happen. If the media is bias towards liberals in the sense you're inplying then they pumped up a news story and sacrificed an election. This just doesn't wash.
The Clinton sex scandal is a fact.
The way the story dominated the news for months is a fact.
[quote] Liberal bias in the media is a well documented occurence. <hr></blockquote>
um... yeah, I saw that documentation... wasn't that a document that scottphd wrote?... or Finboy ? or toady of the corporate thought machine du jour . . . . .
What you point to when you shriek "see that's Liberal bias" is silly little centrism . . . it is th emere fact that most journalism attemps to present the story that peoplle want to see without alienating anybody . .
once again: why would they not want to alienate people? because teh purpose of media these days (as is made clear by the mega-conglomerates that own almost all the outlets) is to SELL!!
If you saw a real Liberal perspective in the media you would be getting class analysis: historical perspectives on almost every issue where money and class realities are shown to be effectively in play, (as they almost always really are) . . . you would have shows about labor relations that didn't always portray unions as mobsters and criminals, and you would have news shows that don't whince when they say the word 'environmentalist' as if they were saying the words AnalRapist. . . same goes for, not only the word but also the whole idea of colonialism : the media never even acknowledges that it was once a major factor in the world and that Europe and America had their own little colonial situations . . . And, You would have perspectives on contemporary globalism that didn't just show protesters and say "they don't like globalism . . .the criminals. . . they broke some windows...naughty naughty" (which granted may be a bad tactic and in many cases those involved just like playing the role of provocatuere) but you would rather get a real look at the history of corporate influence in overseas expansion, the politics behind and resulting from the World Bank's actions and the same with the IMF.
unstead of these you get a silly little language that is centrist and so you, looking for the boogy man, see Liberal bias . . . you are wrong wrong wrong and that's it!
powerdoc: Yes, we do have to read liberal newspapers and watch liberally biased TV stations. It is 90% of the media. Or, do you advocate I only watch stations that reflect my own views? I don't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I mean that in a capitalistic economy system like in the USA that newspapers are read only if people want to read them. If there is a big market for conservative newspapers then there will be a lot of sales. If you said that 90 % of the market is rule by liberal newspapers, it means that 90 % of the readers of newspapers are liberal (or you suppose that conservative people are much more open minded and read liberals newspapers as well). So is it possible that the newspapers in US is divided in three kind : conservative , neutral and liberal. Don't you think that the fact you are a conservative can let you think that every media who is not strictly conservative is liberal rather than neutral and independant ?
To make the things clear, i am belonging to the right in France , i have the choice of reading various right newspapers in France, like the Figaro or Valeurs actuelles. Perhaps there is a little more left oriented newspapers i admit , but i definitevely not buy (even if don't know much about US media) your 90 % ratio because it's not logical.
You folks have got to be kidding. I mean really.....DO YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE that there is no liberal bias in the media? Or, are we just playing "let's argue"? If it is the latter, than I am more than happy to play. But the former? Come the **** on! I have never, ever, run into to somebody that actually BELIEVES that contention.
And, I still say the burden of proof IS NOT on me. This isn't my idea folks! This is talked about ALL THE TIME. It has been discussed for YEARS. But, because I am a sport:
pfflam writes:
[quote]once again: why would they not want to alienate people? because teh purpose of media these days (as is made clear by the mega-conglomerates that own almost all the outlets) is to SELL!! <hr></blockquote>
Because it is concealed bias. That is the whole point. If they came out and said "liberals are great, conservatives are cigar smokin' biggots", there would be an uproar. But of of course, they are not going to do that. The media colors things, emphasizes, downplays, uses various inflections, choice of words, etc. A perfect example is the ANWR situation. They love to show this beautiful untouched green paradise, then show big oil pumpin' rigs plunging into the ground in Texas like the aformentioned Yosemite Sam cartoon. Never mind that the Alaska WR is mostly a barren wasteland! Never mind that we only talking about 10-20% of that ONE area. Never mind there are new and cleaner oil drilling technologies. This is a perfect example.
[quote]you would have shows about labor relations that didn't always portray unions as mobsters and criminals, and you would have news shows that don't whince when they say the word 'environmentalist' as if they were saying the words AnalRapist. . . <hr></blockquote>
Well, it seems to me that unions are portrayed as a group of "Bobs" from Flint, Michigan that are struggling to pay there mortgage and make ends meet (at $30/hr plus full medical benefits) The teacher unions (which I, unfortunately, must be a member of) are portrayed as the great defenders of public education, when in fact what they support is an ultra-liberal agenda that wants unlimited, unaccountable money. And apparently we see things quite differently on environmentalists as well. With rare exception, environmentalists are portrayed as heroes fighting the corrupt, pulluting, big business establishment. The media went "ape **** " over Bush's "rolling back" Clinton's last minute exectuive orders "protecting" the environment. I'm not sure what not sure what YOUR watching, Mr. pfflam.
[quote]you are wrong wrong wrong and that's it! <hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" /> Oh, thanks. I guess I'll just give up. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
powerdoc: I will reiterate the same point I made above, in regards to concealed bias.
"BERNARD GOLDBERG: Well, let me say this, I won't be defensive. Let me just give you one little example. It was during impeachment, which we can all agree was a very, very big, very important story. And right before the impeachment proceedings began, Senators went up to sign what they call "an oath book," promising to be fair and impartial. As they went up, Peter Jennings, doing a live play-by-play, on ABC, identified Senator Santorum as a young conservative Senator from Pennsylvania -- determinately conservative. Then Mitch McConnell of Kentucky was also a determined conservative. Senator Smith from New Hampshire was a very, very conservative Senator from New Hampshire. Those are exact quotes. And I think that's absolutely fine.
This is impeachment, it's a political process, we need to know that these are conservatives, and their conservatism may affect their views. But Marvin, Barbara Boxer was simply Barbara Boxer from California. Ted Kennedy was simply Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts. Paul Wellstone was simply Paul Wellstone from Minnesota. Now, did Peter Jennings, who is a bright, intelligent, excellent, first-rate newsman, did he really think that the conservative views would affect the vote, but that liberal views wouldn't affect the vote?"
This one presents both sides. Though it is in reference to the book "Bias" by Goldberg. Then again, he did spend about 30 years at CBS.
"George Stephanopoulos spent much of his career trying to further liberal causes and candidates by twisting the news agenda and spinning reporters. In the White House, he tried to push a liberal President even further to the left. Yet ABC claims heÂ?s so dispassionate he can now serve as the solo host this fall of a revamped This Week without the slightest liberal tilt. Apparently, they havenÂ?t read StephanopoulosÂ?s 1999 memoir, All Too Human, in which he documented his belief that America would be a better place with more liberals in office and more liberal laws running our lives"
"Â*In a report to Vice President Dick CheneyÂ?s energy task force, the Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday proposed significant changes to air pollution rules affecting coal-fired power plants, oil refineries and other smokestack industries. The EPA and industry said the changes would make plants more efficient, and thus cleaner. But environmentalists said the EPA was rolling back the Clean Air Act, and they vowed new lawsuits along with Northeastern states that complain of downwind air pollution."
Now, some more anecdotal evidence to back up Mr. Goldber's claim:
I personally did a search on abcnews.com for the word "conservative". It yielded 3,928 results. The word liberal yielded "1,776" results. The media often does not label liberals as liberal. That is a big part of the problem.
Then, here is their take on Rush Limbaugh's hearing loss:
<strong>I personally did a search on abcnews.com for the word "conservative". It yielded 3,928 results. The word liberal yielded "1,776" results. The media often does not label liberals as liberal. That is a big part of the problem. </strong><hr></blockquote>Does the fact that 'conservative' appears more often than 'liberal' mean there's a liberal bias? I'm sure if it was the other way around you could claim the same thing - "see, liberal views are presented more often than conservative views!"
How many politicians describe themselves as liberal? Probably a few - Feingold, Wellstone, Kennedy, a coupla others.
Now how many describe themselves as conservative? Probably the entire Republican caucus plus several democrats.
Again I think the issue is that the American people are biased - they are more conservative than liberal, and so politicians describe themselves that way. And then the media reports how they describe themselves.
Look at web sites - I've done the gun control debate over and over here, and there seem to be about a 10 to 1 ratio of conservative to liberal web sites on that issue.
So I guess I could claim "The internet is biased!"
But it's futile. Just stop whining about it and become a journalist if you think there aren't enough conservatives. It just seems to be a tactic used by conservatives to have a straw man to attack.
Some quotes from conservatives about the liberal media:
[quote]"I admit it : The liberal media were never that powerful and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
William Kristol <hr></blockquote>
[quote]"I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage - all we could have asked. ... For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every republican on earth does that."
Andy Rooney was interviewed recently by Larry King:
[quote]KING: A couple of other things. What did you make of Bernard Goldberg's book, critical of television liberal bias, and especially harsh on some of your folks at CBS.
ROONEY: I thought he 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 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.
I think Goldberg, Bernie -- he was a very good reporter, you know. He said some very true things...<hr></blockquote>
Dan Rather and Andy Roony . . . . two examples of people that have a liberally slanted perspective . . . however, how does it manifest itself . . . "MY GOD, MAN he said the words 'very very conservative'...clearly he is a 'criminal Liberal'"
The problem is what you SDW think of as 'Liberal' bias.... It is so far to the biased right that what is basically centrist is labelled with the "L" word.
And as far as these pictures of the ANWR I have seen the exact opposite from the right . . . unstead of showing the region in the summer or spring when there is very much obviouse wildlife that would stand to be damaged by the needed industry for oil pumping and drilling, you get pictures of a frozen wasteland . . . .
And for each of the truly tiny and trivial examples that you point to of Liberal bias, (ex: Dan Rather saying a politician, who gladly calls himself Conservative, is a conservative), you can point out ten explicitly right wing, conservative television and radio commentators . . . many of who explicitly attack the very word 'Libera'l and liberalism not as if it was merely differing political views but as if it was the work of EVIL. and do so nonstop and ery vociferously.
I don't know what news programs that you are watching that portray the Unions as heros, or environmentalists as heros but they aren't on television.
As for FLINT Michigan . . . tell us about Flint.... is it a thriving econnomy? when was the last time you saw anything on TV about the workers of Flint michigan? . . . and Roger And Me.. . with a definite agenda, is NOT on TV . . . don't talk about that movie... but perhaps you should see it to get a clearer idea of what Flint is like.
Also, perhaps the "going Ape **** " over the roll backs of Clintons environmental policies was different then the once that I read, which, all of them, simply stated that Bush was trying to reverse policies, and even stated, when appropriate, that these were policies put into place at the end of Clinton's terms, is it "Liberal bias" just to state the fact?!? After all you too are stating the fact . . . and when that wasn't the case, of 'last minute policy' reversal.... when it was one of Bush's attempts to change long standing policy, or to replace the head of the scientific advisory panel with a FORD MOTORS recommended scientist, rather than the scientist that was currently in place... who was an authority on climatology and a very highly respected scientist among the scientific community . . . the newspapers absolutely DID NOT go "Ape **** " as they should have and as they would have had they been operating under a vast "Liberal" agenda. No this CORPORATE APPROVED AND MOTIVATED change of advisory board leadership went pretty much uncontested . . . .
(why?, because without absolute (and idiotic) obescience to the absurd dependance on the auto/oil industry our hair trigger economy would collapse.)
Ok i have been out for a couple of days, and didn't follow up on what i posted. There are a couple of things i would like to toss out.
First conservative by definition is more reserved, so all the posturing and hoopla don't fit well.
Next, to answer your post from a day or so ago Jimmac. Those links are from a biased and small source (and were for laughs as much as fact due to their onesidedness). As are most links or facts put into contention here. I still contend that this whole proving of an opinion is ludicruous in the extreme. Opinions are based on emotion and perception, not to be confused with knowledge which is based on facts and information.
As to the point of being still in check i provided accurate quotable info from informed poeple. The only counter i have seen is "i don't believe it so it's not true or applicable".
Now to the point of why conservative shows up more than liberal in a search. It's my opinion that the conservative issues are challenged more by a liberal media.
Lastly good ol'sp or sj or whatever, how i wish this were like a chat room and i could just put your nick in ignore. But i'll just take the more traditional route for ignoring you. Know what the funny part of that is <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> i don't miss a single point for either side doing it. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
You have presented NOTHING that pertains to or answers my question. Like SDW you dance a jig around it by trying to prove your point elsewhere.
I'm just going to assume you guys can't come up with a challenging answer. That's ok I knew you couldn't and that I had you.
I once watched a friend of mine play a game of chess with another friend. This friend wasn't popular and was looked at as a wall flower. Not very brite or " with it ". They were wrong and he backed the other friend ( who considered himself a great intellect ) into a corner. As soon as the second friend found out there was no other choice but to lose he tipped the board over and cried " this stupid ".
You will always be in check on this one because stats. on other aspects won't change the fact that this happened.
This is the truth.
You can stay at the board and howl or ignore as long as you want. It won't change anything.
This is checkmate.
PS. By the way my friend is now the head of an accounting dept. for Farmers Insurance. You see he's very good with numbers, patterns, and logic.
<strong>You have presented NOTHING that pertains to or answers my question. Like SDW you dance a jig around it by trying to prove your point elsewhere.
I'm just going to assume you guys can't come up with a challenging answer. That's ok I knew you couldn't and that I had you.
You will always be in check on this one because stats on other aspects won't change the fact that this happened.
This is the truth.
You can stay at the board as long as you want. It won't change anything.
This is checkmate.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok back up. I have supported the contention that the media is liberal biased. I have give points, opinions, and fluff to show that it is there.
How about this for a proof of the liberal biased, here is a site that shows a poll taken of the views of a group of americans (is it a fair representation of the nation?) at this site:
The following are the results of a poll (December, 1996) conducted by Louis Harris and Associates for the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs:
1) most Americans think that the media are biased. Almost half (49%) think that the media usually don't "get the facts straight."
2) some two-thirds believe the media don't "deal fairly with all sides" in social and political reporting.
3) almost three-fourths of Americans see a "fair amount" or "great deal" of political bias in the news. And by more than a 2-to-1 ratio, poll resondents said that bias is liberal rather than conservative (43%-19%).
4) more than 60% of Americans surveyed prefer the media to "simply report the facts" and not "weigh the facts and offer suggestions about how to solve problems." This is a sharp break from ABC News' motto "News With Solutions."
5) some 65% do not believe that "journalists should point out what they believe are inaccuracies and distortions in the statements of public figures."
6) nearly 60% believe the news media have "too much influence."
7) some 47% think journalists have values different from their own.
Here are the numbers that came up with for a group of journalists in washingtion:
Political orientation on social issues: left 30%, center 57%, and right 9%.
Political orientation on economic issues: left 11%, center 64%, and right 19%.
Is the news more social or economic? I believe it is more about social issues. So there you go. Proof from a pair of biased sources on on either side of the fence.
Comments
" You are going to have to restate the question for me. I thought I did answer it ".
If the media is ether controlled or strongly biased by liberals as you claim then how is it so much attention was given to the Clinton sex scandal? This was the number one story everywhere for a very long time.
The logical thing would have been to tone this down. There was no such action taken. It was not subtle or slight. It went on for a better part of a year.
This didn't happen after he lied to the American people. It was that way from the start. I contend that the logical course of action taken by the media ( if they were bias ) would have been to try to gloss this over. It didn't happen. The media was in a frenzy. " ballistic " was the term you used I believe. I believe this is because what the media portrays for us is motivated by their desire to sell copy or improve rateings. They do editorialize and slant the news. Not because they are bias for liberals but because they bias for themselves.
This is a hole in your logic stating that the media is ether bias or the implication of control by liberals. If they are bias then how could this have happened? Liberals everywhere knew this would have an effect on the next election. Why all the focus? I'm sure there are liberals on any news staff. It's just that they aren't what strongly influences their content.
This is the question and a sample of what's been discussed since.
[ 06-19-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
I still don't think the assumption that the media would have ignored the problem if it was run by liberals is a valid one. They did, in fact, downplay various angles and emphasize others (e.g. "sex should be private" or "the popular President said today....." and "the republican leadership today continued its assault...." )
These are all simliar quotes to what was actually said by some news networks during the incident. I also don't think that determining whether or not the media is biased to the left, based on one issue is a valid procedure.
Let us not forget that there were very staunch defenders of what the President did. In addition, the whole thing was quite huge in stature. A President lying directly to the American people? A President willfully deceiving a grand jury? Sex INSIDE the oval office on the people's dime (and time)? These are all a little to big too ignore. To suggest that the press wouldn't have covered it if they were liberally biased is perhaps a provoking suggestion, but that is about all. I don't think it holds water given the magnitude of the situation.
Remember, in the Watergate scandal it was, finally, the Republican leadership that went to Nixon and told him he needed to consider resigning. Even the liberal media couldn't ignore Clinton's unbelievable antics, which stretched back some 20 years. Even THEY could not simply ignore it. Not sexual acts with a whitehouse intern inside the oval office, concealed by blatant lies and a cavalier attitude about the whole thing. Not even them.
In any case, your argument is nullfied by what I posted earlier above. Even if you could somehow prove that there WASN'T liberal bias during the Clinton scandal(s), that wouldn't reflect on the media over a long period of time, say, 25 years.
I would further argue that there was quite a motivation for the media to cover the republican assault, which many Americans also didn't agree with). That too, could damage a political party, one with whom most of the media disagrees.
This is a very moot argument anyway. Liberal bias in the media is a well documented occurence. And, the damning statistic, for the fourth time, is that it votes 9 to 1 democratic. That is hard number. It can't be spun. What is your answer to that?
[ 06-19-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]
[ 06-19-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
[ 06-19-2002: Message edited by: sjpsu ]</p>
The Clinton sex scandal is a fact.
The way the story dominated the news for months is a fact.
Sorry I never saw ANY evidence of downplaying.
The burden of disproof is yours.
Still in check.
um... yeah, I saw that documentation... wasn't that a document that scottphd wrote?... or Finboy ? or toady of the corporate thought machine du jour . . . . .
What you point to when you shriek "see that's Liberal bias" is silly little centrism . . . it is th emere fact that most journalism attemps to present the story that peoplle want to see without alienating anybody . .
once again: why would they not want to alienate people? because teh purpose of media these days (as is made clear by the mega-conglomerates that own almost all the outlets) is to SELL!!
If you saw a real Liberal perspective in the media you would be getting class analysis: historical perspectives on almost every issue where money and class realities are shown to be effectively in play, (as they almost always really are) . . . you would have shows about labor relations that didn't always portray unions as mobsters and criminals, and you would have news shows that don't whince when they say the word 'environmentalist' as if they were saying the words AnalRapist. . . same goes for, not only the word but also the whole idea of colonialism : the media never even acknowledges that it was once a major factor in the world and that Europe and America had their own little colonial situations . . . And, You would have perspectives on contemporary globalism that didn't just show protesters and say "they don't like globalism . . .the criminals. . . they broke some windows...naughty naughty" (which granted may be a bad tactic and in many cases those involved just like playing the role of provocatuere) but you would rather get a real look at the history of corporate influence in overseas expansion, the politics behind and resulting from the World Bank's actions and the same with the IMF.
unstead of these you get a silly little language that is centrist and so you, looking for the boogy man, see Liberal bias . . . you are wrong wrong wrong and that's it!
"There!"
<img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>
powerdoc: Yes, we do have to read liberal newspapers and watch liberally biased TV stations. It is 90% of the media. Or, do you advocate I only watch stations that reflect my own views? I don't.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I mean that in a capitalistic economy system like in the USA that newspapers are read only if people want to read them. If there is a big market for conservative newspapers then there will be a lot of sales. If you said that 90 % of the market is rule by liberal newspapers, it means that 90 % of the readers of newspapers are liberal (or you suppose that conservative people are much more open minded and read liberals newspapers as well). So is it possible that the newspapers in US is divided in three kind : conservative , neutral and liberal. Don't you think that the fact you are a conservative can let you think that every media who is not strictly conservative is liberal rather than neutral and independant ?
To make the things clear, i am belonging to the right in France , i have the choice of reading various right newspapers in France, like the Figaro or Valeurs actuelles. Perhaps there is a little more left oriented newspapers i admit , but i definitevely not buy (even if don't know much about US media) your 90 % ratio because it's not logical.
And, I still say the burden of proof IS NOT on me. This isn't my idea folks! This is talked about ALL THE TIME. It has been discussed for YEARS. But, because I am a sport:
pfflam writes:
[quote]once again: why would they not want to alienate people? because teh purpose of media these days (as is made clear by the mega-conglomerates that own almost all the outlets) is to SELL!! <hr></blockquote>
Because it is concealed bias. That is the whole point. If they came out and said "liberals are great, conservatives are cigar smokin' biggots", there would be an uproar. But of of course, they are not going to do that. The media colors things, emphasizes, downplays, uses various inflections, choice of words, etc. A perfect example is the ANWR situation. They love to show this beautiful untouched green paradise, then show big oil pumpin' rigs plunging into the ground in Texas like the aformentioned Yosemite Sam cartoon. Never mind that the Alaska WR is mostly a barren wasteland! Never mind that we only talking about 10-20% of that ONE area. Never mind there are new and cleaner oil drilling technologies. This is a perfect example.
[quote]you would have shows about labor relations that didn't always portray unions as mobsters and criminals, and you would have news shows that don't whince when they say the word 'environmentalist' as if they were saying the words AnalRapist. . . <hr></blockquote>
Well, it seems to me that unions are portrayed as a group of "Bobs" from Flint, Michigan that are struggling to pay there mortgage and make ends meet (at $30/hr plus full medical benefits) The teacher unions (which I, unfortunately, must be a member of) are portrayed as the great defenders of public education, when in fact what they support is an ultra-liberal agenda that wants unlimited, unaccountable money. And apparently we see things quite differently on environmentalists as well. With rare exception, environmentalists are portrayed as heroes fighting the corrupt, pulluting, big business establishment. The media went "ape **** " over Bush's "rolling back" Clinton's last minute exectuive orders "protecting" the environment. I'm not sure what not sure what YOUR watching, Mr. pfflam.
[quote]you are wrong wrong wrong and that's it! <hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" /> Oh, thanks. I guess I'll just give up. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
powerdoc: I will reiterate the same point I made above, in regards to concealed bias.
More to come:
[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001
[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]
[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
Anecdotal: <a href="http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june02/bias_1-24.html"; target="_blank">Here</a>
"BERNARD GOLDBERG: Well, let me say this, I won't be defensive. Let me just give you one little example. It was during impeachment, which we can all agree was a very, very big, very important story. And right before the impeachment proceedings began, Senators went up to sign what they call "an oath book," promising to be fair and impartial. As they went up, Peter Jennings, doing a live play-by-play, on ABC, identified Senator Santorum as a young conservative Senator from Pennsylvania -- determinately conservative. Then Mitch McConnell of Kentucky was also a determined conservative. Senator Smith from New Hampshire was a very, very conservative Senator from New Hampshire. Those are exact quotes. And I think that's absolutely fine.
This is impeachment, it's a political process, we need to know that these are conservatives, and their conservatism may affect their views. But Marvin, Barbara Boxer was simply Barbara Boxer from California. Ted Kennedy was simply Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts. Paul Wellstone was simply Paul Wellstone from Minnesota. Now, did Peter Jennings, who is a bright, intelligent, excellent, first-rate newsman, did he really think that the conservative views would affect the vote, but that liberal views wouldn't affect the vote?"
This one presents both sides. Though it is in reference to the book "Bias" by Goldberg. Then again, he did spend about 30 years at CBS.
Anecdotal:
<a href="http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/2002/fax20020612.asp"; target="_blank">here</a>
"George Stephanopoulos spent much of his career trying to further liberal causes and candidates by twisting the news agenda and spinning reporters. In the White House, he tried to push a liberal President even further to the left. Yet ABC claims heÂ?s so dispassionate he can now serve as the solo host this fall of a revamped This Week without the slightest liberal tilt. Apparently, they havenÂ?t read StephanopoulosÂ?s 1999 memoir, All Too Human, in which he documented his belief that America would be a better place with more liberals in office and more liberal laws running our lives"
Factual: <a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/766181.asp"; target="_blank">Coal Picture/Story</a>
"Â*In a report to Vice President Dick CheneyÂ?s energy task force, the Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday proposed significant changes to air pollution rules affecting coal-fired power plants, oil refineries and other smokestack industries. The EPA and industry said the changes would make plants more efficient, and thus cleaner. But environmentalists said the EPA was rolling back the Clean Air Act, and they vowed new lawsuits along with Northeastern states that complain of downwind air pollution."
Nice picture, courtesy of MSNBC.
Factual:
<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/598673.asp"; target="_blank">MSNBC again</a>
I suppose that is news.
Factual:
CNN: <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/06/19/campaign.finance.ap/index.html"; target="_blank">Campaign
Finance</a>
Oh my God.
I could keep going. We'd be here all day.
Now, some more anecdotal evidence to back up Mr. Goldber's claim:
I personally did a search on abcnews.com for the word "conservative". It yielded 3,928 results. The word liberal yielded "1,776" results. The media often does not label liberals as liberal. That is a big part of the problem.
Then, here is their take on Rush Limbaugh's hearing loss:
<a href="http://more.abcnews.go.com/sections/us/dailynews/limbaugh_hearing011008.html"; target="_blank">Here</a>
"delighting conservatives and enraging feminists".......
Now, the same search on MSNBC for "Liberal" and "Conservative"
Liberal: 180
Conservative: 376
hmmmmm..
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>I personally did a search on abcnews.com for the word "conservative". It yielded 3,928 results. The word liberal yielded "1,776" results. The media often does not label liberals as liberal. That is a big part of the problem. </strong><hr></blockquote>Does the fact that 'conservative' appears more often than 'liberal' mean there's a liberal bias? I'm sure if it was the other way around you could claim the same thing - "see, liberal views are presented more often than conservative views!"
How many politicians describe themselves as liberal? Probably a few - Feingold, Wellstone, Kennedy, a coupla others.
Now how many describe themselves as conservative? Probably the entire Republican caucus plus several democrats.
Again I think the issue is that the American people are biased - they are more conservative than liberal, and so politicians describe themselves that way. And then the media reports how they describe themselves.
Look at web sites - I've done the gun control debate over and over here, and there seem to be about a 10 to 1 ratio of conservative to liberal web sites on that issue.
So I guess I could claim "The internet is biased!"
But it's futile. Just stop whining about it and become a journalist if you think there aren't enough conservatives. It just seems to be a tactic used by conservatives to have a straw man to attack.
Some quotes from conservatives about the liberal media:
[quote]"I admit it : The liberal media were never that powerful and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."
William Kristol <hr></blockquote>
[quote]"I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage - all we could have asked. ... For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every republican on earth does that."
Pat Buchanan<hr></blockquote>
[quote]KING: A couple of other things. What did you make of Bernard Goldberg's book, critical of television liberal bias, and especially harsh on some of your folks at CBS.
ROONEY: I thought he 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 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.
I think Goldberg, Bernie -- he was a very good reporter, you know. He said some very true things...<hr></blockquote>
The problem is what you SDW think of as 'Liberal' bias.... It is so far to the biased right that what is basically centrist is labelled with the "L" word.
And as far as these pictures of the ANWR I have seen the exact opposite from the right . . . unstead of showing the region in the summer or spring when there is very much obviouse wildlife that would stand to be damaged by the needed industry for oil pumping and drilling, you get pictures of a frozen wasteland . . . .
And for each of the truly tiny and trivial examples that you point to of Liberal bias, (ex: Dan Rather saying a politician, who gladly calls himself Conservative, is a conservative), you can point out ten explicitly right wing, conservative television and radio commentators . . . many of who explicitly attack the very word 'Libera'l and liberalism not as if it was merely differing political views but as if it was the work of EVIL. and do so nonstop and ery vociferously.
I don't know what news programs that you are watching that portray the Unions as heros, or environmentalists as heros but they aren't on television.
As for FLINT Michigan . . . tell us about Flint.... is it a thriving econnomy? when was the last time you saw anything on TV about the workers of Flint michigan? . . . and Roger And Me.. . with a definite agenda, is NOT on TV . . . don't talk about that movie... but perhaps you should see it to get a clearer idea of what Flint is like.
Also, perhaps the "going Ape **** " over the roll backs of Clintons environmental policies was different then the once that I read, which, all of them, simply stated that Bush was trying to reverse policies, and even stated, when appropriate, that these were policies put into place at the end of Clinton's terms, is it "Liberal bias" just to state the fact?!? After all you too are stating the fact . . . and when that wasn't the case, of 'last minute policy' reversal.... when it was one of Bush's attempts to change long standing policy, or to replace the head of the scientific advisory panel with a FORD MOTORS recommended scientist, rather than the scientist that was currently in place... who was an authority on climatology and a very highly respected scientist among the scientific community . . . the newspapers absolutely DID NOT go "Ape **** " as they should have and as they would have had they been operating under a vast "Liberal" agenda. No this CORPORATE APPROVED AND MOTIVATED change of advisory board leadership went pretty much uncontested . . . .
(why?, because without absolute (and idiotic) obescience to the absurd dependance on the auto/oil industry our hair trigger economy would collapse.)
[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
First conservative by definition is more reserved, so all the posturing and hoopla don't fit well.
Next, to answer your post from a day or so ago Jimmac. Those links are from a biased and small source (and were for laughs as much as fact due to their onesidedness). As are most links or facts put into contention here. I still contend that this whole proving of an opinion is ludicruous in the extreme. Opinions are based on emotion and perception, not to be confused with knowledge which is based on facts and information.
As to the point of being still in check i provided accurate quotable info from informed poeple. The only counter i have seen is "i don't believe it so it's not true or applicable".
Now to the point of why conservative shows up more than liberal in a search. It's my opinion that the conservative issues are challenged more by a liberal media.
Lastly good ol'sp or sj or whatever, how i wish this were like a chat room and i could just put your nick in ignore. But i'll just take the more traditional route for ignoring you. Know what the funny part of that is <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> i don't miss a single point for either side doing it. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: Ruhx ]</p>
I'm just going to assume you guys can't come up with a challenging answer. That's ok I knew you couldn't and that I had you.
I once watched a friend of mine play a game of chess with another friend. This friend wasn't popular and was looked at as a wall flower. Not very brite or " with it ". They were wrong and he backed the other friend ( who considered himself a great intellect ) into a corner. As soon as the second friend found out there was no other choice but to lose he tipped the board over and cried " this stupid ".
You will always be in check on this one because stats. on other aspects won't change the fact that this happened.
This is the truth.
You can stay at the board and howl or ignore as long as you want. It won't change anything.
This is checkmate.
PS. By the way my friend is now the head of an accounting dept. for Farmers Insurance. You see he's very good with numbers, patterns, and logic.
[ 06-20-2002: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>You have presented NOTHING that pertains to or answers my question. Like SDW you dance a jig around it by trying to prove your point elsewhere.
I'm just going to assume you guys can't come up with a challenging answer. That's ok I knew you couldn't and that I had you.
You will always be in check on this one because stats on other aspects won't change the fact that this happened.
This is the truth.
You can stay at the board as long as you want. It won't change anything.
This is checkmate.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok back up. I have supported the contention that the media is liberal biased. I have give points, opinions, and fluff to show that it is there.
How about this for a proof of the liberal biased, here is a site that shows a poll taken of the views of a group of americans (is it a fair representation of the nation?) at this site:
<a href="http://www.gargaro.com/bias.html"; target="_blank">http://www.gargaro.com/bias.html</a>;
The following are the results of a poll (December, 1996) conducted by Louis Harris and Associates for the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs:
1) most Americans think that the media are biased. Almost half (49%) think that the media usually don't "get the facts straight."
2) some two-thirds believe the media don't "deal fairly with all sides" in social and political reporting.
3) almost three-fourths of Americans see a "fair amount" or "great deal" of political bias in the news. And by more than a 2-to-1 ratio, poll resondents said that bias is liberal rather than conservative (43%-19%).
4) more than 60% of Americans surveyed prefer the media to "simply report the facts" and not "weigh the facts and offer suggestions about how to solve problems." This is a sharp break from ABC News' motto "News With Solutions."
5) some 65% do not believe that "journalists should point out what they believe are inaccuracies and distortions in the statements of public figures."
6) nearly 60% believe the news media have "too much influence."
7) some 47% think journalists have values different from their own.
Here's some from an article at fair:
<a href="http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html#orientation"; target="_blank">http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html#orientation</a>;
Here are the numbers that came up with for a group of journalists in washingtion:
Political orientation on social issues: left 30%, center 57%, and right 9%.
Political orientation on economic issues: left 11%, center 64%, and right 19%.
Is the news more social or economic? I believe it is more about social issues. So there you go. Proof from a pair of biased sources on on either side of the fence.