For acludem

[jimnyc]

Media Bias Basics

Seventy million Americans rely on broadcast television for their news. They form opinions based on what they hear and see and to a lesser extent, read. Since citizens cannot cast informed votes or make knowledgeable decisions on matters of public policy if the information on which they depend is distorted, it is vital to American democracy that television news and other media be fair and unbiased.

Conservatives believe the mass media, predominantly television news programs, slant reports in favor of the liberal position on issues. Most Americans agree, as the data below indicate. Yet many members of the media continue to deny a liberal bias.

Evidence of how hard journalists lean to the left was provided by S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, in his groundbreaking 1980 survey of the media elite. Lichter's findings were authoritatively confirmed by the American Association of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in 1988 and 1997 surveys. The most recent ASNE study surveyed 1,037 newspaper reporters found 61 percent identified themselves as/leaning "liberal/Democratic" compared to only 15 percent who identified themselves as/leaning "conservative/Republican."

With the political preferences of the press no longer secret, members of the media argued while personally liberal, they are professionally neutral. They argued their opinions do not matter because as professional journalists, they report what they observe without letting their opinions affect their judgment. But being a journalist is not like being a surveillance camera at an ATM, faithfully recording every scene for future playback. Journalists make subjective decisions every minute of their professional lives. They choose what to cover and what not to cover, which sources are credible and which are not, which quotes to use in a story and which to toss out.

Liberal bias in the news media is a reality. It is not the result of a vast left-wing conspiracy; journalists do not meet secretly to plot how to slant their news reports. But everyday pack journalism often creates an unconscious "groupthink" mentality that taints news coverage and allows only one side of a debate to receive a fair hearing. When that happens, the truth suffers. That is why it is so important news media reports be politically balanced, not biased.

The Media Research Center regularly documents the national media's ongoing liberal bias — and has since 1987. For a look at media bias in the last decade, the last year or even last night, check the MRC homepage.

The information that follows relays the political composition of the media — voting patterns, political affiliations and beliefs — as expressed to researchers by the reporters themselves. This is followed by a review of public opinion on liberal media bias, and what members of the media have said about liberal media bias, and a guide to how to identify liberal media bias.
----------------------------------------------------
"81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976."

" Over the 16-year period, the Republican candidate always received less than 20 percent of the media’s vote."

"44 percent of journalists identified themselves as Democrats, compared to only 16 percent who tagged themselves as Republican."
-------------------------------------------------------
"At newspapers with more than 50,000 circulation, 65 percent of the staffs were liberal/Democrat or leaned that way. The split at papers of less than 50,000 was less pronounced though still significant, with 51 percent of staffs identifying as liberal/Democrat compared to 23 percent who identified as conservative/Republican."
--------------------------------------------------------
Most Recent Data: Six Percent of Press Conservative

The "National Survey of the Role of Polls in Policymaking" [full report in PDF], completed by Princeton Survey Research Associates for the Kaiser Family Foundation in collaboration with Public Perspective, a magazine published by the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, was released in late June 2001.

The poll questioned 1,206 members of the public, 300 "policymakers" and 301 "media professionals, including reporters and editors from top newspapers, TV and radio networks, news services and news magazines." Significant findings from the survey of media professionals appear below.

Business Reporters Are Reporters, Too

A 1988 poll by the Journalist and Financial Reporting, a New York-based newsletter, surveyed 151 business reporters from over 30 publications ranging from the Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, USA Today, New York Times and Chicago Tribune to Money, Fortune and Business Week. The survey found that newspaper and magazine business reporters are as liberal as their colleagues covering politics.

"54 percent identified themselves as Democrats, barely 10 percent as Republicans."
-----------------------------------------------------------
In 1995, Kenneth Walsh, a reporter for U.S. News & World Report, polled 28 of his fellow White House correspondents from the four TV networks, the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, USA Today, Washington Post, Copley, Cox, Hearst, Knight-Ridder, plus Newsweek, Time and U.S. News & World Report, about their presidential voting patterns for his 1996 book "Feeding the Beast: The White House versus the Press." As reported in the MRC's June 1996 MediaWatch, Walsh counted 50 votes by White House correspondents for the Democratic entry compared to just seven for the Republican.
--------------------------------------------------------------
"There is a liberal bias. It’s demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time. There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias. There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for —- most of the people who work at Newsweek live on the upper West Side in New York and they have a liberal bias....[ABC White House reporter] Brit Hume’s bosses are liberal and they’re always quietly denouncing him as being a right-wing nut." — Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas in an admission on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"There are lots of reasons fewer people are watching network news, and one of them, I’m more convinced than ever, is that our viewers simply don’t trust us. And for good reason. The old argument that the networks and other `media elites’ have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it’s hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don’t sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we’re going to slant the news. We don’t have to. It comes naturally to most reporters.....Mr. Engberg’s report set new standards for bias....Can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, a network news reporter calling Hillary Clinton’s health care plan 'wacky?’...
"‘Reality Check’ suggests the viewers are going to get the facts. And then they can make up their mind. As Mr. Engberg might put it: `Time Out!’ You’d have a better chance of getting the facts someplace else -- like Albania." — CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg on an anti-flat tax story by CBS reporter Eric Engberg, February 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"I think we are aware, as everybody who works in the media is, that the old stereotype of the liberal bent happens to be true, and we’re making a concerted effort to really look for more from the other, without being ponderous or lecturing or trying to convert people to another way of thinking." — ABC World News Tonight Executive Producer Emily Rooney, September 27, 1993 Electronic Media.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Two recent national surveys on media bias have yielded surprising results. A large percentage of newspaper editors admit there is liberal bias in their own backyards — newspapers — and even more find bias in television and radio stations.

First, in September 1992, the Newspaper Association of America (NAA) commissioned a poll of 94 editors, 89 publishers and 22 executives carrying both titles, asking "Do you believe there's bias in the general media's political coverage?" Highlights of the NAA survey were featured in the MRC's June 1993 MediaWatch.

http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/MediaBiasBasics.html

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Liberals: "Uhm. No it's not. a journalism school did a study one time!"

 

[insein]

I love how they still think its biased towards conservatives though. lol

 

[acludem]

Nice try, Jim, but this report doesn't mention the fact that the editors, that is the people who decide what goes in the paper, are overwhelmingly conservative. This would explain the answers of the editors and publishers. They think there is a bias because they are conservative.

acludem

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
Nice try, Jim

Wasn't a try, it was FACTS over a long history of time. Even the reporters admit there is a bias. Walter Cronkite admits there's a bias, but we should think he's loony because acludem say's otherwise.

Besides. where do you get your facts?

In January 1998, Editor & Publisher, the preeminent media trade magazine, conducted a poll of 167 newspaper editors across the country. Investor’s Business Daily reporter Matthew Robinson obtained complete poll results, highlights of which were featured in the MRC's February 1998 MediaWatch.

In 1992, when just 43 percent of the public voted Democrat Bill Clinton for President, 58 percent of editors surveyed voted for him.

In 1996, a minority (49 percent) of the American people voted to reelect Clinton, compared to a majority (57 percent) of the editors.

Doesn't sound like 'overwhelmingly' conservative to me! I believe I should be the one saying nice try!

 

[acludem]

Interesting....here are some numbers from 2000 in which a survey of over 200 editors and publishers found that editors supported Bush by a 2 to 1 margin and publishers by a 3 to 1 margin:

Newspaper editors and publishers favored Bush by a 2-to-1 margin, according to the survey of nearly 200 editors and publishers. Publishers, who are at the pinnacle of power within news organizations, were even more pro-Bush, favoring the then-Texas governor by a 3-to-1 margin, E&P reported. Gazing through the rose colors of their pro-Bush glasses, the news executives incorrectly predicted a Bush electoral landslide in November 2000. [See E&P, Nov. 2, 2000]

E&P is Editors and Publishers a journal covering American newsmedia. Their site is at http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/index.jsp

acludem

 

[Hobbit]

Acludem, link to the article itself. I'm not going to sift through that web site to find your source for you.

Oh, and for the last time, even the people you're defending as being impartial, now listen very closely, very, very closely, ADMIT THAT THERE IS A HEAVY LIBERAL BIAS IN THE MEDIA. That's editors, publishers, reporters, etc. It goes all the way from the company owners down to the kids that toss the papers on your front porch. It's there. Any lawyer worth 2 cents will tell you that it's practically useless to defend someone who's confessed, so stop it.

 

[acludem]

I can't link to the article itself because it requires subscription to the journal, I could only get that little blurb. I will try and get it from my college library tomorrow, I think I may be able to access this journal through one of the online academic research engines.

acludem

 

[insein]

Originally posted by acludem
I can't link to the article itself because it requires subscription to the journal, I could only get that little blurb. I will try and get it from my college library tomorrow, I think I may be able to access this journal through one of the online academic research engines.

acludem

Perhaps then you could post an exact excerpt from said article for us to peruse.

 

[acludem]

Here's the entire article, I can't give you a good link, because I can only get to it through an academic search engine available only through college libraries, or by use of a proxy server at home with an assigned port.
==========================================

Newspaper executives endorse, plan to vote for -and predict a big victory for Bush

It's George W. Bush -- big time. The nation's newspaper editors and publishers strongly believe the Texas governor will beat Al Gore in Tuesday's election for president. By a wide margin, they plan to vote for him themselves. And, to complete this Republican trifecta, newspapers endorsed Bush by about 2-to-1 nationally. One has to wonder: whatever happened to the so-called "liberal press"?

These results -- surprising in their clear-cut nature -- come from an exclusive Editor & Publisher/TIPP survey completed exactly one week before the election. (Results of a separate newspaper readers' poll start on p. 7 of this issue.) The poll was conducted for E&P by TIPP, a national polling firm in Oradell, N.J., a unit of TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence.

TIPP polled 193 newspaper executives across the country, almost evenly divided between editors and publishers. This sample was weighted to roughly reflect the national breakdown of small (under 50,000 circulation), medium (50,000 to 100,000), and large (over 100,000) daily newspapers.

Besides seeking views on election results and endorsements, E&P surveyed the editors and publishers on a wide range of related issues, including perceptions of bias and overall coverage of the presidential race.

This provided some unexpected and revealing results. For example, about 25% of the editors and publishers stated they believe that newspapers, overall, showed bias in covering the presidential race, favoring one candidate over the other -- but only 4.7 % said that their paper showed any slant.

Give us a call
With the election still considered tight, and a dozen or more states in the "toss-up" category, the analysis of knowledgeable local observers -newspaper editors and publishers, for example -- should carry extraordinary weight this year.

Unfortunately for Al Gore, most of these local "experts" seem to feel that the election is slipping away from him.

Editors and publishers in most of the key toss-up states, including Florida, Oregon, and Pennsylvania, predict a Bush win in their states. Even those in Gore's home state of Tennessee predict a Bush win there. This, essentially, puts Bush over the top, giving him 301 electoral votes to 237 for Gore (see map). The vice president, in this view, will hold California, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin -but it won't be enough.

Looking at the national race from a local perspective, the editors and publishers provide more bad news for Gore. By an astonishingly wide margin, 55% to 14%, they forecast a Bush triumph across the United States. Even those who plan to cast their votes for Gore narrowly pick Bush as the likely winner.

Endorsements
"The voter this year is more independent than ever before," Richard E. Campbell, editor of The Argus-Press in Owosso, Mich., told us. "He is voting for himself, not what the newspaper tells him."

Clearly, however, newspaper executives still believe in the value and importance of editorial endorsements. According to the survey, four out of five believe that endorsing candidates "is an important responsibility of newspapers." And, in fact, at least three out of four papers did make an endorsement in the presidential race this year.

Al Gore may wish they didn't.

Once again, the Democratic candidate came up short, with Bush earning 48% of the nods to 23% for Gore. In this case, size matters, with smaller papers going for Bush almost 3-to-1, midsize papers 5-to-3, and larger papers 5-to-4. The papers that backed Bush, according to the TIPP analysis, represent 58% of total national circulation while Gore's boosters represent 42%.

The leading reasons for endorsing Bush cited in the poll were "moral trust" and "strong leadership," while Gore's chief selling points are "government experience" and "the state of the economy" -- no surprises there.

The editors and publishers are not shy about claiming that their endorsements have significant impact. Nearly 40% say that newspaper endorsements "lead to superior candidates being elected." Almost 36% disagree with this, with the rest not sure.

Yet, making selections also come with a cost. For 46% believe that "readers may perceive we are partisan if we endorse a candidate. " (More than 54% of editors express these fears.) But they disagree strongly with the idea that their readers' fears are justified, as 86.5% asserted that endorsements do not result in "biased coverage" in newspapers.

More than half the sample said that there are often "strong disageements" within their editorial boards on whom to endorse. That's one reason one in four newspapers -- one in three among smaller papers -- offered no endorsement this year. Michael Rogers, managing editor of The Evening Times in Sayre, Pa., explained, "Our publisher does not like them, and we could not come to a consensus on our editorial board. Our publisher feels it can appear too partisan."

Stan Tiner, editor of The Sun Herald in Biloxi, Miss., agreed, proposing that newspapers "should move to a no-endorsement policy."

Personal views
OK, newspapers may have endorsed Bush at a 2-to-1 rate, but how did their publishers and top editors (often reputed to be rather liberal in outlook) feel about that choice, which was not always in their hands? Pretty darn good, to judge by the survey results.

For they show that by almost precisely the same 2-to-1 ratio, these executives plan to vote for Bush this week. There are some significant differences within this overall finding, however. Publishers back Bush 59% to 20% -- while editors give Bush the edge by just 5%. Still, this punctures a common view that newsroom chiefs have a certain leftward tilt.

There are also huge disparities depending on the size of newspapers. Editors and publishers at small papers support Bush overwhelmingly --but at midsize and large newpapers, the vote is evenly divided. (Interestingly, more than one in three editors refused to divulge their vote. Just one in five publishers felt this way.)

More food for thought is found in the fact that nearly all of the executives at papers that backed Bush intend to vote for him -- while more than a quarter of those at Gore papers plan to switch sides and vote for Bush.

A rare exception to all of this is David Felts, editor of The Daily News in Greenville, Mich., who plans to vote for the Libertarian candidate for president even though his paper backed Bush. "I would rather vote my heart than not," he reports. "There are times when I can disagree with the paper."

Coverage
As we have observed, roughly one in four in the E&P/TIPP sample said newspapers provided coverage that favored one candidate over the other this year. Of course, there's another way to look at it: the vast majority of editors and publishers believe that the press provided very balanced coverage this time around.

Of the group that detected bias, four out of five said the candidate treated as the favorite son was Al Gore. Most of those making this claim, to be sure, were Bush backers, although about one in 10 Gore supporters agreed with this view. (If Gore does lose the election, one has to wonder whether press bias, if it existed, worked in his favor --or hurt him.)

"I don't think it is some internal or conspiratorial thing," Brian Cooper, executive editor of the Telegraph Herald of Dubuque, Iowa, told us, "but Gore has probably gotten a lot more attention."

While only a handful admit that their paper showed favoritism in this race, most of those who do make this confession say that they slanted toward Bush.

Despite these claims, the editors and publishers feel that, overall, newspapers provided fine coverage of the presidential race, with 60% rating it as "excellent" or "good," 28% "fair," and just 4.7% "poor." Editors and publishers felt about the same way concerning this -- as they did in many other areas.

David Levine, editor of The Tribune-Democrat in Johnstown, Pa., called coverage this year "thorough" and "a lot more objective" than in the past, volunteering that "this is the fairest The New York Times has ever been" and adding that he was "also impressed with AP."

Mike Gallaway, publisher of The Express Star in Chickasha, Okla., told us, however, that he feels that the coverage of the race "is often slanted toward who the paper wants to win. To be excellent, we would report on the truth on both sides." And Charles Pittman, publisher of the Quad-City Times in Davenport, Iowa, said, "We let the candidates dictate what is covered more than people dictating the issues. I don't know if we get a true understanding of what the true issues are."

True understanding or not, the moment of truth is now at hand. And as Oklahoma Publisher Mike Gallaway puts it, "When it is all said and done, I think people pick who they see as best." May the best man win.

METHODOLOGY
TIPP President Raghavan Mayur has assembled for E&P a panel of about 800 editors and publishers from newspapers of all sizes. A survey questionnaire was faxed to each of them, and 193 returned it with their answers. The margin of error for the poll is 7.5%. TIPP received no replies from just three states (Delaware, Maine, and West Virginia) and Washington, so Mayur "called" them for a candidate based on latest polling data. The latest polls were also taken into account for four states where predictions were about evenly split: Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, and Wisconsin.

Endorsements: Small is beautiful for Bush
Which candidate has your newspaper endorsed in the upcoming 2000 presidential election?

Legend for Chart:

A - Bush
B - Gore
C - Neither

A B C

Over 100,000 circulation 52.4% 42.9 4.8%
50,000-100,000 circulation 54.5% 33.3% 15.2%
Under 50,000 circulation 45.3% 17.3% 37.4%

Source: E&P/TIPP

Nothing wrong with picking a winner
Legend for Chart:

A - Agree
B - Disagree
C - Neither

A B C

Endorsements lead to superior 38.9% 35.8% 25.3%
candidates being elected.

Generally, endorsements result 8.3% 86.5% 5.2%
in biased coverage in newspapers.

Coverage gets high marks
Generally speaking, how would you rate the coverage of the presidential race by American newspapers?

No Answer 2.6%
Excellent 7.3%
Excellent 52.8%
Good 28.0%
Fair 4.7%
Poor 4.7%
Not super

Source: E&P/TIPP

Publishers back Bush, editors divided
Why do you plan to vote for in the upcoming 2000 presidential election?

Legend for Chart:

A - Bush
B - Gore
C - Other
D - No answer

A B C D

Total 46.1% 23.8% 3.2% 26.9%
Editors 33.0% 27.7% 4.2% 35.1%
Publishers 58.6% 20.2% 2% 19.2%

Source: E&P/TIPP

Bird in the hand for BUSH?
Newspaper executives endorse, plan to vote for - and predict a big victory for Bush

Editors and publishers pick the president

TIPP asked editors and publishers which candidate would carry their home states, then declared a state for a candidate.

Electoral votes necessary to win: 270

Bush: 301

Gore: 237

Gore Bush

Wash. 11 Ore. 7
Calif. 54 Idaho 4
N.M. 5 Nev. 4
Hawaii 4 Mont. 3
Minn. 10 Wyo. 3
Iowa 7 Utah 5
Wis. 11 Ariz. 8
Ill. 22 Colo. 8
Mich. 18 N.D. 3
N.Y. 33 S.D. 3
Vt. 3 Neb. 5
Maine 4 Kan. 6
Mass. 12 Okla. 8
R.I. 4 Texas 32
Conn. 8 Alaska 3
N.J. 15 Mo. 11
Del. 3 Ark. 6
D.C. 3 La. 9
Md. 10 Miss. 7
Ind. 12
Tenn. 11
Ala. 9
Ohio 21
Ky. 8
Pa. 23
Va. 13
N.C. 14
S.C. 8
Ga. 13
Fla. 25
N.H. 4

PHOTO (COLOR): Has Gore, with his many missteps, handed the election to Bush? The Texas governor may be as surprised as anyone that he now seems firmly in control -- in the view of most newspaper editors and publishers.

~~~~~~~~

By Greg Mitchell

Reporting assistance for this article provided by Joe Strupp

 

[acludem]

C'mon Jim, where's your response?

acludem

 

[MtnBiker]

When was the poll taken?

 

[acludem]

Sometime in 2000, probably in late summer or early fall based upon the fact it takes into consideration what papers endorsed who for President. The numbers all correspond to the 2000 presidential election, all of Jim's numbers were from years prior, so mine are newer.

acludem

 

[Hobbit]

Newspapers are in the business to make money. When it became clear that Bush would win, more newspapers turned towards endorsing him in order to win over the majority of their readers. However, newspapers aren't the problem. Two newspapers that I can think of are distributed nationwide. One is "The New York Times," which puts such a liberal spin on every story, it's sick (they supported a judge who wanted to go easy on someone in the kiddy porn biz). The other is "The Wall Street Journal," which is more conservative. The newspapers aren't that big of a problem, since they slant the way their readers slant. The problem is with TV. CBS, ABC, NBC, and CNN all slant their stories to the left, and are barely even attempting to hide it anymore.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
C'mon Jim, where's your response?

You've already proven 2x that you can't be trusted. Funny how you can't supply a link. "It's only available through college libraries".

Not to mention this had to do with one specific vote - Gore/Bush. The data I provided was about news reporting in general over a span of a couple of decades. Everything you have ever said about media bias has revolved around the 2000 vote.

Lastly, you've shown absolutely nothing to contradict what the major players have already admitted many times over.

 

[jimnyc]

Funny, the readers don't even believe what you posted! Here's something the very same marketing company neglected to tell you:

A new Editor & Publisher/TIPP national poll of 1,956 adults reveals a dead-even race between Al Gore and George W. Bush among likely voters -- but a quite dramatic split in public views of press bias in coverage of the Presidential race. The complete poll results, with analysis, will be published in the September 25 issue of Editor & Publisher.

Political commentators often allege media bias, but this is the first national poll this year to examine voter opinion on this subject. The poll finds that almost 4 out of ten voters believe that the newspaper they read the most ``has favored one candidate over the other in their news coverage of the campaign.'' This figure rises to 44% among those who are considered regular readers of newspapers.

And almost two-thirds of those who perceive bias feel that the candidate who has been ``favored'' is: Al Gore. Surprisingly, many Democrats, along with Republicans, feel this way.

Conservatives have long charged that the media is ``liberal-oriented,'' and indeed this belief is reflected in the new poll in the finding that fully half (53%) of all Bush supporters allege bias. And among Republicans who perceive bias, four out of five feel the press favors Gore.

Fewer Gore backers perceive bias, about three in ten, and 57% of Democrats believe the press has favored Bush in their coverage. But a significant number of Democrats, 35%, acknowledge that their candidate has gotten more than an even break from the press. That means that about one in every ten Democrats feels Gore has received at least a slight boost from the press.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39c77c417b00.htm

 

[acludem]

Jim, you cleverly AVOIDED the evidence that shows you are absolutely wrong. I can't post a link that will work. I accessed this article through Jstor, which is a repository for academic journal articles (editor and publisher is an academic journal) and I could only access it through my college library. Go to www.jstor.edu and you will find that you either have to pay for a subscription or access it through a library. I can't post a link for the general public. All your response was was a smokescreen for the fact you know I'm right, the editors and publishers of American newspapers, that is the people who make the decisions, are overwhelmingly CONSERVATIVE!!!!!! Read the article, dammit. Your other article has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not editors and publishers are liberal (as you contend, with 10 year old numbers) or conservative (as I contend, backed by the survey I posted which was taken in 2000).

acludem

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by acludem
Jim, you cleverly AVOIDED the evidence that shows you are absolutely wrong. I can't post a link that will work. I accessed this article through Jstor, which is a repository for academic journal articles (editor and publisher is an academic journal) and I could only access it through my college library. Go to www.jstor.edu and you will find that you either have to pay for a subscription or access it through a library. I can't post a link for the general public. All your response was was a smokescreen for the fact you know I'm right, the editors and publishers of American newspapers, that is the people who make the decisions, are overwhelmingly CONSERVATIVE!!!!!! Read the article, dammit. Your other article has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not editors and publishers are liberal (as you contend, with 10 year old numbers) or conservative (as I contend, backed by the survey I posted which was taken in 2000).

acludem

Even if they are, the fact is that the coverage is biased. I can verify that with my own eyes.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
Jim, you cleverly AVOIDED the evidence that shows you are absolutely wrong.

Ummm, NO, bunghole!

Who they voted for or thought would win the election in 2000 doesn't have an overall bearing on media bias - dumbass!

Everytime this bias argument comes up you speak of nothing more than the 2000 election. Wake up and come out from under that rock, there's more to the news than one election.

And AGAIN, even the most respected of media have admitted there is a liberal media bias. I suppose you have more insight than them though. Wait till you get out of school before thinking you know all about history. You're still wet behind the ears, dolt.

 

[acludem]

According to the numbers you continue to throw in my face, most journalists are liberal and so slant coverage, I am throwing numbers in your face that you are trying to ignore that show that the people who are making the decisions about what goes into the papers each day are largely conservative, this would run counter to your claim of bias.

Obviously, you've decided to call me names and ignore the facts I've presented, that means I won the argument.

acludem