Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Can you prove the media is liberally biased?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 8
view profile
History
Can you prove the media is liberally biased?Page 2 of 3    (1, 2, 3)
If the media was truly liberally biased, this President would have never been elected for his second term. The softball questions he was thrown, the lack of critical commentary when he made statements that could be easily tracked and verified all make it quite obvious that the press served the needs of the President and this administration before it served the nation's citizens.

Most talking heads are members of the same aristocracy that has a great say in how the nation is run. They send their children to the same private schools, are members of the same clubs, live in the same gated communities, make salaries that place them among the top earners in your society, and work for companies that are corporations with ties to this same administration.

They realize that not carrying the company line will quickly get you struggling to get hired to be the replacement weatherman at the local Peoria TV station.

Imagine a world were an Edward R. Murrow was alive, and realize the great difference in how this presidency would have been handled.

When the East Asia Security Act was being voted on, the initial vote would have passed it. When the various defence lobbies started to make direct calls to politicians (who were on the House floor at the time), those votes were CHANGED.

Live on C-Span....

The final vote was strongly against it.

This was a bill that would have been good for America's security. It was a bill that the President himself stood strongly for.

No one, except Lou Dobbs, mentioned that politicians( both parties , btw) had (in effect) been bought off and voted against a bill that would have made America safer.

It's the greatest story never told, and the proof you need to see the myth of the liberal media blown out of the water once and for all.
 lovableladywanted
Joined: 5/14/2006
Msg: 9
Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 4/27/2007 4:00:53 PM
Mr. Knoxman I think the people on f-x news do not even know the true dictionary definition of liberal nor do the bomb throwing right wing talk show hosts . Thats how dumb I think these folks are and their sheep flock to them and mimic them .... but thats the thread I started lmao. I believe media is biased toward the right . Not one media outlet questioned this quagmire in Iraq leading up to the war . Scott Ritter was deemed irrelevent which is a damn shame . Thats enough proof right there that the media is not biased liberal or left .
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 10
view profile
History
Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 4/27/2007 8:33:49 PM
Having read the posts so far here it seems like the only thing most agree on is that the media is biased in a direction opposite their own bias.

So therefore, as an optimist, I find the media not so much biased right or left (although there are ample examples of both) but biased toward consistently emphasizing bad news over good, sometimes manufacturing controversy where there is little.

Just one example of many:

A few years ago I helped organize a conference whose theme was the many links between environmental and economic health. Our keynote speaker was Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who made an eloquent and passionate case that what's good for the environment is good for the economy, and vice versa. Almost all participants in the event came away feeling far more optimistic about merging the two priorities than they started with.

But the reporter for the largest newspaper in the state covering the event cornered RFK Jr. after his speech and devoted his entire line of questioning to his take on the highly controversial practice of blasting mountaintops off to get at the coal underneath, a topic not even mentioned in his speech. RFK Jr. didn't think much of the practice, so the headlines the next day blared KENNEDY BLASTS MOUNTAIN TOP REMOVAL, with nary a mention of his actual address at the conference, or for that matter, the conference itself, other than that it was what brought Kennedy to the state.

At another event there was a panel of media representatives, and I asked the panel how we could get GOOD news on environmental progress reported on. They looked at each other in confusion, and finally one offered up "maybe pick a slow day for real news?"

I've been interviewed countless times over the years on a number of topics, not all relating to the environment. And I've been close to a number of other news events that were reported on. NEVER have I experienced a media outlet getting the story completely right. I'm not talking liberal or conservative. I'm just talking about simple facts like numbers, dates, the names of people or who was where when, what they did, who said what to whom. TV is consistently the least accurate, with public radio having the best track record. Other radio outlets and newspapers vary depending on the reporter.

Interestingly, about thirty years ago, a friend of mine had to be rescued from a mountain climbing expedition when bad weather came in and his insulin froze. He nearly died, the rescue was dramatic and heavily covered by radio, tv, newpapers, and magazines. They all made mistakes, but who did the most accurate job reporting the event? The National Enquirer. Go figure.

So I may be diverting the thread a bit, but I'll just offer this simple advice. Take WHATEVER you get from the media with a grain of salt. If it's political bias you're looking for, you can find it easy enough, in whichever direction will upset you the most. If it's accurate accounting you seek, good luck. And if you happen to share my belief that the ratio of good that happens in the world compared to bad is a whole lot higher than ever gets reported, you'll probably have to go do your own investigation and tell all your friends, unless it's a real slow day for 'real' news.

So there's an optimist's pessimistic view on neutral reporting.

Dave

 semper_vera
Joined: 10/25/2006
Msg: 11
view profile
History
Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 4/27/2007 10:49:41 PM

The media itself isn't biased one way or the other

That's a terribly naive view.

As soon as you have a human processing information and deciding what to present and how to present it, you have bias no matter how objective they try to be - and very few of them seem to be trying very hard.

Liberals complain about the right-wing bias of the media; conservatives complain about the liberal bias of the media. Both sides cite numerous examples to support their case.

Dave hit the mark: NOTHING the media says should be trusted completely - they never give you the entire story.

To realize just how biased the American media is, compare what they present to what is being presented in overseas news shows and papers. SO much more information that somehow doesn't make it into the press here.

MiniTruth, indeed.

sv
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 12
Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 4/28/2007 11:02:18 AM
The media is biased towards the easy story. Many years ago I noticed that most "news" stories in the paper were actually somebody whining about something. They hold a press conference, issue a release, or hold an event. Easy to cover. Look at how many "news" stories have been made out of Rosie and Donald sniping at each other. For that matter, look at how much coverage Donald gets every time he whines about Martha Stewart, gambling laws or anything else that focuses his tiny intellect. Combine this with "news" stories about attractive young women doing something Naughty (not wearing knickers, using drugs, or finding a new boyfriend), and 90% of the paper is filled.

Contrast this with the Lord's Army. I only heard about it on African radio out of South Africa until recently, and it's still buried on page 12 when it's covered at all. This is real news. But it would require someone picking up a phone and actually looking for information. So we don't hear about it.
 lovableladywanted
Joined: 5/14/2006
Msg: 13
Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 5/13/2007 5:08:02 AM
Halftime thats a good point . Everywhere you go , you have crappy customer service, workers doing 20 things for like 7 bucks an hr. Our society has gotten away from doing things correctly to doing things cheaply. Its unfortunate but it spills over into the media, and the 911 tragedy [thats another thread].Look at F-x making a news story out of saying Happy Holidays over Merry Xmas. On the realm of things , you know how ridiculous that is .
 NO_VNE
Joined: 5/9/2007
Msg: 14
Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 5/13/2007 3:11:03 PM
Get the books,"Bias and Arrogance", by Bernard Goldberg. I have them both. Wonderful reads. www.bernardgoldberg.com/
Not only does he name the bias he proves it with literal examples. The media should report the news. Not make social policy or opinion.
 sd_matt
Joined: 7/9/2006
Msg: 15
Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 5/16/2007 5:20:21 PM
Well I saw an example of bias the other day. Yahoo news posted an article about the net worth of a republican candidate. I cant remember his name. Why didnt the news discuss the net worth of all the candidates for president?
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 16
view profile
History
Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 5/19/2007 7:22:42 PM
Just look at the references on that "liberal" channel CNN with the recent captured troops in Iraq.

In all the reports I saw (when my computer was down, I was watching TV far more than usual) used a very interesting word for those troops.

"Kidnapped..."

In a war zone, that's a rather strange term to use when your troops are captured by insurgents.

You want a liberal media, tune in to stations outside the USA.
 sd_matt
Joined: 7/9/2006
Msg: 17
Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 5/22/2007 1:14:30 PM
Yeah thats true Montreal.

I wonder if they would have used the term "captured" in ww2?

Well here in the U.S. it depend on what station you watch. Although you wont hear any broadcast stations calling the insurgency the " resistance". I think on AM radio I heard it a few times.

For me its usually little things. On the broadcast news, I think it was CNN or NBC, there was about three seconds of footage of a policeman in riot gear taking a swing at the shins of a Mexican demonstrator. The demonstrator was standing and moving backwards. It didnt show what happened before that. Youll never know why the officer swung at him. Who was right or wrong I dont know. But from the footage it looks like the officer is the bad guy.

The bias seems to change from issue to issue. I think when it comes to race a liberal bias is true. Maybe one exception is the Duke case.
 sd_matt
Joined: 7/9/2006
Msg: 18
Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 5/22/2007 1:23:42 PM
The guy I like best is Glen Beck

Not for his conservative views but because he spouted out a couple of web sites. One is Factcheck.org and the other is a U.S. government site that gives the cut and dry of legislation.

Ive viewed alot of "watchdog" sites and I think Factcheck is the real deal. Dont take my word for it. See it for yourself. It can be a bit laborious to read but that only relfects how thorough the writers are. I always tell people to keyword search their interests, experiences and expertise and then see how the site stacks up.
 lovableladywanted
Joined: 5/14/2006
Msg: 19
Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 5/24/2007 3:09:21 PM
Lets be real here . If you are an up and coming journalist of WHATEVER political persuasion, you would want a big scoop even if it screws your side, left or right. Like in the OJ case everyone criticized the late Johnny Cochrane , but any level atty would love to take the OJ case even to be his atty. Its similar in journalism. I lean left but if I can get a scoop that will screw the left and in the process set me up for life in fame and finance I would go for it .
 sd_matt
Joined: 7/9/2006
Msg: 21
Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 5/25/2007 6:42:10 PM
Heres one

Just before I read this blog I read a headline on Yahoo news; "Controversial creationism museum set to open in Ky".

If freedom of speech permits someone to spend $27 million to express his views then why is it controversal?

Watch the video. Either ABC is digging for news or it shows some subtle anti religion undertones.

This would only be controversal to a secular progressive who is anti religion.

What a student believes should not be of any concern to a teacher. Just understand the material, get the grade and make your own choice. At least I hope thats how America feels about it.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 22
Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 5/25/2007 7:11:32 PM
It's controversial for the same reason a Holocaust Denial museum would be controversial. Or an "HIV does not cause AIDS" museum would be. Because it's bullshit. Nothing to do with secularism or faith; fact vs crap.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 23
view profile
History
Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 5/25/2007 7:16:02 PM
Here's one example of what I mean by the liberal media as a myth.

It's quite simple to demonstrate, and we can just look at the President's own words in his last news conference, and the total lack of any journalist actually questioning some logic that defies ....logic.

Here's quote # 1 , over to you Mr President :


THE PRESIDENT: We are there at the invitation of the Iraqi government. This is a sovereign nation. Twelve million people went to the polls to approve a constitution. It's their government's choice. If they were to say, leave, we would leave.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070524.html


Pretty clear, right ? They say leave....the USA packs it's bags.

Except....several minutes later.....in that same press conference :


THE PRESIDENT: I would say that five years ago, like I said, we're going to pursue him, and we are pursuing him. And he's hiding. He is in a remote region of the world. If I knew precisely where he is, we would take the appropriate action to bring him to justice. He is attempting to establish a base of operations in Iraq. He hasn't established a base in operations. My points yesterday were, here was his intentions, but thankfully, of the three people I named, all of them no longer are a part of his operation.

My point is, is that -- I was making the point, Jim, as I'm sure you recognized, that if we leave, they follow us.

- Ibid


So, in essence, he is saying (at the same time, in the same press conference) we will leave if they ask us to - and then that means Al Qaeda then "follows us" .

So, according to the President, the Iraqi government is now the key decision maker in US security - if both of those statements are true.

The best part ?

That "liberal media" didn't say a word about the President's conflicting statements.
 Manifest_Destiny
Joined: 5/10/2007
Msg: 24
Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 5/25/2007 9:05:51 PM
I'm going to journalism school so I wont ever allow a bias to either the left or the right appear in my work. I hope those who have established themselves in the media have not forgotten their training.
 sd_matt
Joined: 7/9/2006
Msg: 25
Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 5/25/2007 9:46:10 PM
Halftimedad
If people wish to believe crap thats their right.

What is your concept of education? Just the facts? Or how about understanding of the world around you? If you suscripe to the concept of understanding then we should make sure our children understand science and the "crap" thats out there. The farther left or right you go the more Ive seen a lack of willingness to promote an attitude of understanding.

Manifest
Since youre in school for just this thing can you give some textbook examples of media distortion?
 sd_matt
Joined: 7/9/2006
Msg: 26
Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 5/25/2007 10:06:02 PM
Another example

The media headlines report more American G.I. deaths than insurgent deaths. Talk to some Joes who have been there on the front line . Even if you downplay their claims big time then we still kill more of the insurgents than they kill G.I.s.
Does that mean that we are meeting our objectives in Iraq? Not necessarily.

If the media is a supply and demand system then many people want to believe that they are kicking the armys butt, tactically speaking.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 27
view profile
History
Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 6/23/2007 10:47:06 PM
Here's a really interesting one.

Let's say an American ship was attacked by a country, and that country had set out to destroy that ship quite deliberately. Let's say that ship was attacked with napalm, and involved the machine gunning of stretchers, and life rafts.

Let's say that attack was quite obviously an attempt to sink that ship, and kill every single sailor aboard it.

Pretty devastating stuff , right ?

Imagine any country you want, and the outrage it would unleash. Even the liberal media would go NUTS , right ?

Well, it happened....and Katie Couric and the rest of the talking heads haven't said a word. .

Here's the official commission that investigated it :


The commission consists of:

* A former ambassador to one of the US's most important allies

* A US Navy rear admiral and former head of the Navy's legal division

* A Marine general, America's highest ranking recipient of the Congressional Medal of Honor and the former Assistant Commandant of Marines

* A US Navy four-star admiral, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the highest military position in the country), former Chief of Naval Operations, a World War II hero, and the only Naval admiral to have commanded both the Pacific and the Atlantic fleets

The panel is moderated by a former ambassador who served as Chief of Mission in Iraq and Deputy Director of Ronald Reagan's White House Task Force on Terrorism.

http://www.counterpunch.org/weir06232007.html


Their findings ?


The commission announces explosive findings:

* That the attack, by a US ally, was a "deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew"

* That the ally committed "acts of murder against American servicemen and an act of war against the United States"

* That the attack involved the machine-gunning of stretcher-bearers and life rafts

* That "the White House deliberately prevented the U.S. Navy from coming to the defense of the [ship] never before in American naval history has a rescue mission been cancelled when an American ship was under attack"

* That surviving crewmembers were later threatened with "court-martial, imprisonment or worse" if they talked to anyone about what had happened to them; and were "abandoned by their own government"

* That due to the influence of the ally's "powerful supporters in the United States, the White House deliberately covered up the facts of this attack from the American people"

* That due to continuing pressure by this lobby, this attack remains "the only serious naval incident that has never been thoroughly investigated by Congress"

* That "there has been an official cover-up without precedent in American naval history"

* That "the truth about Israel's attack and subsequent White House cover-up continues to be officially concealed from the American people to the present day and is a national disgrace"

* That "a danger to the national security exists whenever our elected officials are willing to subordinate American interests to those of any foreign nation" and that this policy "endangers the safety of Americans and the security of the United States"

- Ibid


The reaction from that "liberal media" ?


A search of hundreds of the largest news media in this country indexed by Lexis-Nexis does not turn up a single US newspaper that mentioned this commission, a single US television station, a single US radio station, a single US magazine. While it was mentioned in an Associated Press report focusing on one of the commission's most dramatic revelations, Lexis reveals only a sprinkling of news media printed information from this AP report, and those few that that did failed to mention this commission itself, its extremely star-studded composition, and the entirety of its findings.

Apart from a few members of the alternative press and the excellent Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (not indexed by Lexis), this commission might as well not have existed as far as most of the US media is concerned --and therefore, the American public.

While the results of its investigation can be read in the Congressional Record, "Findings of the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty, the Recall of Military Rescue Support Aircraft while the Ship was Under Attack, and the Subsequent Cover-up by the United States Government," only an infinitesimal fraction of the American citizenry has any idea that a commission made up of some of the nation's most respected military leaders stated publicly and forcefully --on Capitol Hill --that a US president chose to sacrifice US interests and US servicemen (specifically, the 25 of the 34 dead who were killed after US rescue missions were recalled) to Israeli interests, and then ordered a cover-up of his actions.

Almost no one knows that the US's purported "special" ally tried to sink a Navy ship, and then quibbled for years over what it would pay in compensation to the widows, children, and parents of those it killed and to the United States for the ship it destroyed. (Thirteen years later it grudgingly paid $6 million for a ship valued at $40 million.)

The one piece of this story that did make it into the mainstream media has also remained astonishingly buried: testimony that provided the final nail in the coffin of claims that the Israeli attack --which lasted two hours; consisted of rockets, napalm, and torpedoes; and killed 34 Americans total and injured over 170 --was somehow accidental.


- Ibid


If the media was , as some claim, an open market with liberals running it - this story would have been a firestorm.

Had it been any other country than Israel , it probably would have resulted in a military attack of great intensity.

To all those who claim it's a liberal media, the defense rests.
 davidsauvignon
Joined: 2/6/2008
Msg: 28
view profile
History
Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 1/15/2009 8:33:30 PM
To realize just how biased the American media is, compare what they present to what is being presented in overseas news shows and papers. SO much more information that somehow doesn't make it into the press here.

Right, okay, so here would be one example. It was found in BBC media reports in the past couple of days, old reports of American media coverage and opinions on Bush's 2004 inaugeration. How on Earth can 'he' justify spending $40 million on 'his' inaugeration?! We're in the middle of a war! He should cancel all of the gala events, balls, etc.! We can't afford it! It's wrong for that much money to be spent on 'his' event.

Fast forward four years. Can anyone show where the American media has criticized spending $160 million for Obama's shin dig? While 'we're' still in a war? The stock market is tanking? The banking and lending institutions are teetering? 401K's and retirement accounts/benefits have all but vanished? The fact we are in fact, in a recession ?






~ds~
 maxxoccupancy
Joined: 2/5/2007
Msg: 29
view profile
History
Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 1/16/2009 12:33:03 AM
Faux News is crap. Having said that, there was a study in 1992 of news storied covering Bush, Sr. and then candidate Clinton. Although the Bush's have actually been long time proponents of activist government and globalism, they have campaigned conservative since the 1970's. Nearly 90% of Bush stories were negative, while slightly less than half of the stories on Clinton were. In that same year, 85% of journalists polled voted for Clinton, 13% voted for Bush, and only 2% voted for Ross Perot.

If my personal experience is considered valid by the OP, I have seen so many Marxists and authoritarians in liberal arts programs (including many courses I've taken), and, seeing the resulting bias amongst graduates, I've had to conclude that this is unquestionably the result of some organized effort to promote this.

When one compares economies organized through free market competition vs. rigidly controlled state run monopolies and Soviet style centralization, almost anyone immediately concludes that workers and consumers are MUCH better protected by the competition of the free marketplace. Nevertheless, I keep hearing liberals screaming at me about the "NEEEEED" for socialistic policies. Journalists seem to be the most ardent about this. Students are repeatedly told that this is about open mindedness, education, and enlightenment. Try questioning these "ideas" or even suggest that a society based on Constitutionally limited government, silver/gold backed currency, and unregulated markets is even an option to consider. Expecting the "poor" to take responsibility for themselves? Out of the question.
 Strings6
Joined: 7/14/2007
Msg: 30
view profile
History
Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 11/5/2009 2:28:06 PM
Op....you are biased and the first sentence of your post shows it
 wisguyingb
Joined: 1/5/2008
Msg: 31
Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 11/5/2009 3:00:51 PM
Anyone asking for 'proof' that the mainstream media is liberally biased should also supply proof that Fox news is right wing and a wing of the republican party.

In the end the cable news networks air 'opinion' shows. And they all have the leanings.
Hannity-Right
Olberman-Left.

If you don't like it then don't watch.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 32
Can you prove the media is liberally biased?
Posted: 11/5/2009 4:24:11 PM
John Stossel has always been a nutbar, and I defy you to find a single liberal who loved him. Thank God he's off to cable where he can reach fewer and do less damage. I hadn't even heard that he'd moved to the Cult of Fox, but it's where he belongs.

And just cause he was on a show that won 17 emmy's doesn't mean he had anything to do with it.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Can you prove the media is liberally biased?