A myth in the unmaking

The University of Connecticut Department of Public Policy released the results of a survey of both journalists and the general public.

Some of the more interesting findings:

Asked who they voted for in the past election, the journalists reported picking Kerry over Bush by 68% to 25%. In this sample of 300 journalists, from both newspapers and TV, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 3 to 1 -- but about half claim to be Independent. As in previous polls, a majority (53%) called their political orientation "moderate," versus 28% liberal and 10% conservative.
----------------
Why bother arguing about this new liberal myth....Reporters/Journalists,
When asked they proudly admit they are lefties....they don't even try to claim they are fair or balanced.....

http://www.capitaleye.org/mediacontribs.6.2.03.asp
 
The University of Connecticut Department of Public Policy released the results of a survey of both journalists and the general public.

Some of the more interesting findings:

Asked who they voted for in the past election, the journalists reported picking Kerry over Bush by 68% to 25%. In this sample of 300 journalists, from both newspapers and TV, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by 3 to 1 -- but about half claim to be Independent. As in previous polls, a majority (53%) called their political orientation "moderate," versus 28% liberal and 10% conservative.
----------------
Why bother arguing about this new liberal myth....Reporters/Journalists,
When asked they proudly admit they are lefties....they don't even try to claim they are fair or balanced.....

http://www.capitaleye.org/mediacontribs.6.2.03.asp

why would you think that a news reporter's political affiliation would impact his reporting of the news? That is a presumption of profound unprofessional impropriety without much to base it upon.
 
If you can't recgonize it, you don't realize its there....

Ever hear the label, neo-con...guess theres no such thing as a neo-liberal
How about right-wing, far right-wing, right wing fundamentalists?
Funny how seldom I see the words left-wing in print....
Ever run across many positive news on Iraq? ... Do you read about the soldiers that won important medals?
More likely you read 50 articles about Abu Ghraib and alleged torture at Gitmo
Find many articles explaining the views about man-made GW deniers? Didn't think so...
Hear anything about William Jefferson lately? Wonder whats happening with that..
How about Obama's admitted drug use? Maybe to early yet... Do ya think Bush's DUI got enough ink? And Bush's alledged drug use will be hitting the press soon as if its a proven fact... every Obama story will more than not bring up Bush...watch for it...
How about the usual headline..."How can Democrats capture the White House in '08"
Funny, I never even once saw, ..."How can Republican's retain the White House in '08".....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bias by Omission:

Ignoring facts that tend to disprove liberal or left-wing claims, or that support conservative beliefs.

Bias by Story Selection

A pattern of highlighting news stories that coincide with the agenda of the Left while ignoring stories that coincide with the agenda of the Right.

Bias by story selection often occurs when a media outlet decides to do a story on a study released by a liberal group, but ignores studies on the same or similar topics released by conservative groups.

Bias by Placement:

A pattern of placing news stories so as to downplay information supportive of conservative views.

Does a story appear across the top half of the front page, or is it buried back with the obituaries and the horoscopes

Bias by Spin:

Emphasizing aspects of a policy favorable to liberals without noting aspects favorable to conservatives; putting out the liberal interpretation of what an event means while giving little or no time or space to explaining the conservative interpretation.

Bias by Labeling:

Attaching a label to conservatives but not to liberals; using more extreme labeling for conservatives than for liberals

Bias by Policy Recommendation or Condemnation:

When reporters list possible solutions to society's problems, the solutions often follow the agenda of the Left ("raise taxes," "cut defense," "have taxpayers pay for abortions," "issue more government regulations"). And when reporters review past policies, their evaluations follow a liberal script ("Reaganomics made the rich richer and the poor poorer," "slashes in social spending caused increased infant mortality and homelessness," "the lack of an energy policy has made the U.S. dependent on foreign oil," "too much defense spending has driven us into bankruptcy").
-------------------------

a presumption of profound unprofessional impropriety without much to base it upon.? IMO its more a function of nature...of perspective,
or even a personal dislike for those in opposition to your political views.....

We are a product of our beliefs....liberals and conservatives will report the very same story in completely different ways...its natural...they both
see events from two completely different perspectives....change a small word here and there...a slightly different adjective here and there, etc....
The same story will take on completely different tones...sometimes subtle, sometimes glaring.....

If the Cons are in the majority of journalists and reporters, the stories and readers will take on a view from that perspective.....sadly they are in the
very noticeable minority....
 
wow

My news is better than your news..... nya nya nya.


ALL news sources should be distrusted. You need to watch and read them all then use reason and intellect to figure out the real truth. If you really want to bake your brain add a couple dozen foreign news services to your reading list.
 
Every example ever given is in fact NOT a news program. When you get a NEWS program let me know, OK?

Entertainment shows like Riley and the like are NOT news, they are OP Eds. They do not have to EVER be fair and balanced. The problem with you people is you can't understand the obvious.

http://www.searchenginejournal.com/fox-news-caught-sabotaging-wikipedia-entries/5486/

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfNoVhkEWZI[/ame]

http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/10/29/fox-news-caught-censoring-ron-paul-in-republican-debate/
 
GunnyL, the only reason you don't see is a slant is because it's slanted in your direction. The power of denial is overwhelming. Since I'm neither a republican or democrat, I see the bias in each. Fox is clearly more biased than CNN, but since CNN has to compete with other networks for the democrat slant viewers it's ratings will be lower. This lets fox whore around the title of most watched, which only further promotes the stupidity of calling themselves the most watched because they are the most balanced.

I can easily counter with you DO see a slant because it ISN'T slanted in YOUR direction.

Since I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, I see the bias in each. Need I continue?

I spent four years in journalism in which I was trained to not only find the slant, but how to create it as well.

If I'm looking for some truth, I usually look at what each has to say, and then see if the BBC weighs in as well. The truth lies somewhere in the common denominators. I never have trusted a single news source on much of anything. They can't even get the weather right.

"Slant" is a matter of perspective. Being to the right of CNN does not make Fox News the mouthpiece of the GOP anymore than being to the left of Fox makes CNN the mouthpiece of the Democrats.

One common denominator I DO find in most of these "bas Fox" threads is liberals trying to pass off op-ed shows as evidence that Fox is slanted right. Billy O'Reilly and Sean Hannity are not "news" anymore David Letterman is. They are paid for their ability to entertain with their opinions.
 
Calling news that contradicts our fantasy world biased is an empty reply. Fox 'faux' news is biased because the news positions are dictated and not reported. Other news media have bias but it is a natural bias and not the bias of big brother telling the children what to say. No broadcaster on Faux news is liberal for instance, even though CNN has several conservative news people. And while CNN shows the good bad and the ugly, faux shows what they are allowed to show. Its news people are selected for their ideological position and not for their talent or reporting. Could one imagine a liberal who spoke as glenn beck does - a right wing wacko in my opinion - on faux news? Hardly. Corporate propaganda is the latest idea in our idealogical world.
 

Nice links , of course two of them have no proof they are related to Fox News in anyway and one is again an entertainment program of Fox Channel.

If in the third link the man or men are Fox employees, explain why we do not have names and titles for their positions?

If in the first link the Fox IP was used, why isn't it mentioned and then a blurb put on about who has access to that IP address? Perhaps because that is no proof of anything nefarios from Fox News at all?

So much for your smoking gun. Try again, this time with something other then lies and innuendo. I mean they are so biased according to you people, it shouldn't be hard at all to find real proof and not fabricated stuff like this. I mean come on, you and your buddies say this over and over, how damn hard can it be to bury me in evidence?
 
Thompson charges Fox News is biased against his campaign
By Bob Cusack | Posted 11/25/07 11:05 a.m. [ET]
November 25, 2007
Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) suggested on Sunday that Fox News is biased against his campaign, charging that the network highlights commentators who have been critical of his run for the presidency.

In an interview on "Fox News Sunday," host Chris Wallace pressed Thompson on how some conservatives have lambasted Thompson's campaign and showed clips of Fox conservative commentators Charles Krauthammer and Fred Barnes criticizing the former senator.

Thompson said, "This has been a constant mantra of Fox, to tell you the truth." He noted that other conservatives have praised his bid for the GOP nomination and took issue with a Fox promo that focused on polling in New Hampshire, where Thompson is registering in the single digits.

He said he is running second in national polls and has been leading or tied for the lead in South Carolina for "a long, long time."

Thompson, in a firm, but measured tone, scolded Wallace: "...for you to highlight nothing but the negatives in terms of the polls and then put on your own guys who have been predicting for four months, really, that I couldn't do it, kind of skew things a little bit. There's a lot of other opinion out there."

Krauthammer and Barnes regularly appear on Fox. Krauthammer is a syndicated columnist and Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

Wallace denied to Thompson that "Fox has been going after you" and asked, "Do you know anybody who thinks you've run a great campaign, sir?"

Thompson responded, "It's not for me to come here and try to convince you that somebody else thinks I've run a great campaign." He added that National Review magazine has praised him for issuing detailed policy proposals on Social Security and immigration.

Following the sharp exchange, a smiling Wallace said, "I'm glad I asked the question because I got a heck of an answer."

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news...s-biased-against-his-campaign-2007-11-25.html


hehehehehe..


you fanbois crack me up. Almost as rabid as the Apple crowd.

:thup:


hehehe.. as if Hannity and Oreilly are MERELY op ed shows... Which, may I ask, who is the LIBERAL equivilent at any of the other channels? If MSNBC had two op ed shows chock full of liberal opinions I could only imagine the "liberal bias" bullhorn from fox fanbois. I've already listed a comparison between MSNBC and fox. Besides Juan "I agree with Sean" Williams and Alan "backbone like a noodle" Colmes who the hell else on fox, besides geraldo's occasional clash with Bill and "missing white girl in the caribean" vansustren, is even REMOTELY CLOSE to being liberal minded?


I'll remind you jokers of that pile of sewage FOX tried to have compete with John Stewart... Indeed, nothing like a bastion on non-bias to come up with what amounts to The Right Brothers (hahahahaha!) of news satyr, eh?


:thup:
 
Thompson charges Fox News is biased against his campaign
By Bob Cusack | Posted 11/25/07 11:05 a.m. [ET]
November 25, 2007
Former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) suggested on Sunday that Fox News is biased against his campaign, charging that the network highlights commentators who have been critical of his run for the presidency.

In an interview on "Fox News Sunday," host Chris Wallace pressed Thompson on how some conservatives have lambasted Thompson's campaign and showed clips of Fox conservative commentators Charles Krauthammer and Fred Barnes criticizing the former senator.

Thompson said, "This has been a constant mantra of Fox, to tell you the truth." He noted that other conservatives have praised his bid for the GOP nomination and took issue with a Fox promo that focused on polling in New Hampshire, where Thompson is registering in the single digits.

He said he is running second in national polls and has been leading or tied for the lead in South Carolina for "a long, long time."

Thompson, in a firm, but measured tone, scolded Wallace: "...for you to highlight nothing but the negatives in terms of the polls and then put on your own guys who have been predicting for four months, really, that I couldn't do it, kind of skew things a little bit. There's a lot of other opinion out there."

Krauthammer and Barnes regularly appear on Fox. Krauthammer is a syndicated columnist and Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

Wallace denied to Thompson that "Fox has been going after you" and asked, "Do you know anybody who thinks you've run a great campaign, sir?"

Thompson responded, "It's not for me to come here and try to convince you that somebody else thinks I've run a great campaign." He added that National Review magazine has praised him for issuing detailed policy proposals on Social Security and immigration.

Following the sharp exchange, a smiling Wallace said, "I'm glad I asked the question because I got a heck of an answer."

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news...s-biased-against-his-campaign-2007-11-25.html


hehehehehe..


you fanbois crack me up. Almost as rabid as the Apple crowd.

:thup:


hehehe.. as if Hannity and Oreilly are MERELY op ed shows... Which, may I ask, who is the LIBERAL equivilent at any of the other channels? If MSNBC had two op ed shows chock full of liberal opinions I could only imagine the "liberal bias" bullhorn from fox fanbois. I've already listed a comparison between MSNBC and fox. Besides Juan "I agree with Sean" Williams and Alan "backbone like a noodle" Colmes who the hell else on fox, besides geraldo's occasional clash with Bill and "missing white girl in the caribean" vansustren, is even REMOTELY CLOSE to being liberal minded?


I'll remind you jokers of that pile of sewage FOX tried to have compete with John Stewart... Indeed, nothing like a bastion on non-bias to come up with what amounts to The Right Brothers (hahahahaha!) of news satyr, eh?


:thup:

Again you can not provide one shred of evidence that FOX NEWS is biased. But thanks for playing.
 
I get the feeling that Mike Wallace could be busted taking money from the GOP in some elaborate SKulls style fraternal cerimony with black candles, robes and chanting and you'd still insist that what he does on his private time makes no difference in what he does for fox news.

It doesn't break my heart if you refuse to see it. Hell, considering the stubborn polarity of the 04 election I pretty much expect it. Like I said, unbiased news channels usually DO tryto compete with the comedy channel's John Stewart by making a complete right wing rip off, don't they?


also, I've already posted my analysis of fox talking heads versus MSNBC. It's BIG H little c for a reason. Perhaps you'd like to remind me who is the liberal equivilant to all the "harmeless" right wing op eds on msnbc then? Hell, even CNN's posterboy for op ed is Glen "the raving lunatic trying to tap the addhd niche" beck.
 
I get the feeling that Mike Wallace could be busted taking money from the GOP in some elaborate SKulls style fraternal cerimony with black candles, robes and chanting and you'd still insist that what he does on his private time makes no difference in what he does for fox news.

It doesn't break my heart if you refuse to see it. Hell, considering the stubborn polarity of the 04 election I pretty much expect it. Like I said, unbiased news channels usually DO tryto compete with the comedy channel's John Stewart by making a complete right wing rip off, don't they?


also, I've already posted my analysis of fox talking heads versus MSNBC. It's BIG H little c for a reason. Perhaps you'd like to remind me who is the liberal equivilant to all the "harmeless" right wing op eds on msnbc then? Hell, even CNN's posterboy for op ed is Glen "the raving lunatic trying to tap the addhd niche" beck.

You mean like when Dan Rather was running fund raisers for Democrats in Texas and else where? Remind me about how you felt about that one?
 
what the hell does dan rather have to do with MSNBC or CNN? Does he have a show? If he's been a pundit in any frequency does this mean that I can pile DICK "i wish I could have me some of that bill" MORRIS on the heaping bation of fox's obvious bias?


for real, dude.. at least be coherent when pointing a finger.
 
what the hell does dan rather have to do with MSNBC or CNN? Does he have a show? If he's been a pundit in any frequency does this mean that I can pile DICK "i wish I could have me some of that bill" MORRIS on the heaping bation of fox's obvious bias?


for real, dude.. at least be coherent when pointing a finger.

Stay with me for a moment, I know it is hard with the attention span of gnat and all. BUT Dan Rather did this while Anchor for CBS. And guess what? It barely made the news, the Left leaning MSM was not interested in this at all.
 
Dan Rather ate his own crow. It has nothing to do with specific networks despite your generalization.


IM talking about MSNBC and CNN. Let's not sidestep here. I asked you a few questions directly comparing Fox news to MSNBC and CNN. Perhaps you'd like to offer an answer?
 
Dan Rather ate his own crow. It has nothing to do with specific networks despite your generalization.


IM talking about MSNBC and CNN. Let's not sidestep here. I asked you a few questions directly comparing Fox news to MSNBC and CNN. Perhaps you'd like to offer an answer?

You have not provide one single example of Fox NEWS being biased. No one has. Yet you all claim it as gospel. If it is so obvious, so blatant, so true, you should be able to deluge me with links, with proof, of somekind.

All you have is a whine that their entertainment is biased,SO THE HELL what? Until Fox showed up CNN and MSNBC did not even pretend to be unbiased. They ran the same programs and invited talking heads, usually 4 or more, with one token supposed republican. HELL in 96 when the Republicans took ove rht eHouse and Senate we got treated to the term "ranking member" they would continue to invite the same democrats as in the past, when the claim was "we invited them because they are heads of committees " and called them Ranking Members of Congress, almost never adding Democrat to their name or title. And they continued to NOT invite the new Republican committee heads.

Perhaps your just to young to remember that boondoogle?
 
you are going to get boring if you keep insisting that there is no reason to percieve a bias with fox.

Like I said:

1. I've compared the pundits who have shows on fox with MSNBC. I asked you who is MSNBCs version of hannity and oreilly. Do you want to debate this or keep dodging the question?


2. Why else would fox news even ATTEMPT a right wing newes satyr show copeting with the daily show from THE COMEDY CHANNEL if they had no right wing bias?


3. Besides the two jellyfish (colmes and williams) and two micro-political talking heads (geraldo and greta) who the hell else is on fox news representing a liberal perspective ON PAR WITH MIKE WALLACE AND BRIT HUME?


Like I said, you would deny a bias even if wallace had a tattoo of the GOP elephant on his ass while admitting on air that he is working towards the political directive of rupert murdoch. It doesn't break my heart, or shock me really, that you would insist otherwise. Im challenging you to answer specific things that I get the feeling you know would make your assertions about fox news an even hotter, brighter bonfire of laughter. Are you going to play the game here or repeat the slogans and toss up dan rather strawmen?
 
you are going to get boring if you keep insisting that there is no reason to percieve a bias with fox.

Like I said:

1. I've compared the pundits who have shows on fox with MSNBC. I asked you who is MSNBCs version of hannity and oreilly. Do you want to debate this or keep dodging the question?


2. Why else would fox news even ATTEMPT a right wing newes satyr show copeting with the daily show from THE COMEDY CHANNEL if they had no right wing bias?


3. Besides the two jellyfish (colmes and williams) and two micro-political talking heads (geraldo and greta) who the hell else is on fox news representing a liberal perspective ON PAR WITH MIKE WALLACE AND BRIT HUME?


Like I said, you would deny a bias even if wallace had a tattoo of the GOP elephant on his ass while admitting on air that he is working towards the political directive of rupert murdoch. It doesn't break my heart, or shock me really, that you would insist otherwise. Im challenging you to answer specific things that I get the feeling you know would make your assertions about fox news an even hotter, brighter bonfire of laughter. Are you going to play the game here or repeat the slogans and toss up dan rather strawmen?

Did you not JUST argue it was not about personal individuals, was not that your excuse why Dan Rather was not an appropriate subject to bring up while the ANCHOR of CBS NEWS actively doing JUST what you have no proof these two are doing?

You could at least try the lame excuse Rather used. He claimed he had no idea that as the listed Guest Speaker he was being used to attract people to these Democratic Fund raisers.
 
what the fuck does CBS news have to do with CNN or MSNBC?

for real, dude... your aversion to the political mudhole shrinks your interest level. I asked you SPECIFIC questions about fox news and your fish on a hook avoidance is conveying more than your sidestepping.

NO, I did not argue that it's not about specific individuals. I'm argueing the exact opposite. which is why I keep asking you who is the fucking equivilent on MSNBC to fox's hannity and oreilly. WHO ARE THE LIBERALS WHO REGULARLY REMAIN IN POLITICAL ISSUES ON FOX WHO ARE ANYTHING CLOSE TO TUCKER CARLSON AND JOE SCARBOROUGH FOR MSNBC?

OR, if that's not tasty enough for you then why would an UNBIASED news channel decide to challenge a fucking comedy show on THE COMEDY CHANNEL that leans left?

im not isnterested in your lame fucking dan rather strawman.


good greif, dude. if you already want to scream uncle just say so.

bolo02.jpg
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top