Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No.Is there a Liberal Media Bias?
It’s a contrivance of the right in response to the media reporting facts and information that conflict with subjective, errant rightist dogma.
How reporters might ‘identify’ or the perception of the public doesn’t undermine the fact that the notion of a ‘liberal media bias’ is a myth.
The origins of the liberal media myth date back to the early days of the Cold War, but was used by the partisan right as a political weapon during Vietnam, when the media accurately reported the fact that the war could not be won.
The myth was reinforced during the 70s in the context of such events as the Pentagon Papers, Watergate, and America’s involvement in illegally overthrowing lawfully elected foreign governments – incorrectly perceived by the right as efforts to ‘embarrass’ the republican administrations at the time.
Today the myth of a ‘liberal media’ has become even more bizarre and pathetic – used by the right to deflect blame from election losses, why phony scandals such as Benghazi ‘weren’t investigated,’ and casting republicans in a ‘negative light’ when in fact republicans have only themselves to blame for such political fiascoes as ‘legitimate rape.’
The only ‘bias’ the media have it to make a profit – nothing more; which is why the conservative clam that the media are ‘in the bag’ for Obama is blatant idiocy; the media would love nothing more than to see the president impeached, as that would sell a lot of newspapers and air time.
We processed 717 articles and 15,357 quotes collected between May 1 and July 15, 2012. - See more at: Liberal Media Bias: Fact or Fiction | Special Reports
YES.
YES!!!
A thousand times, YES!
MSNBC's Chris Matthews admits liberal media bias - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com
Harvard Study Concludes Media Biased Towards Democrats (What a Surprise!) | The Dead Fish Wrapper Watch
JournoList Story Confirms Liberal Media Bias
MSNBC Confirms Liberal Media Bias | The Daily Steak
Fact-checking operations merely confirm liberal bias (Is that a fact?) | Poynter.
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
And here's little Katie Couric who confirms it for you doubters.
The "eyes" have it.
YES.
YES!!!
A thousand times, YES!
MSNBC's Chris Matthews admits liberal media bias - Spokane Conservative | Examiner.com
Harvard Study Concludes Media Biased Towards Democrats (What a Surprise!) | The Dead Fish Wrapper Watch
JournoList Story Confirms Liberal Media Bias
MSNBC Confirms Liberal Media Bias | The Daily Steak
Fact-checking operations merely confirm liberal bias (Is that a fact?) | Poynter.
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom
And here's little Katie Couric who confirms it for you doubters.
The "eyes" have it.
When even the most liberal of organizations admit there is a bias then what do we attribute to those liberals who are still in denial? I suppose Truth does not have a liberal bias?
You got that Right!
"Liberal bias is the greatest propaganda tool of the past 40 years a surefire way to explain away any news report that the right doesnt like."
- Bob Somerby
After Goldwaters landslide loss, conservative media outlets made bias the centerpiece of their explanation of the elections outcome.
The Liberal Media myth was invented by the right a number of years ago to deflect accountability. Actually, VP Spiro Agnew first floated the concept in a speech during the Nixon administration, when the press was investigating and reporting on Watergate. It was actually a very savvy move, as it allowed them to have it both ways. When negative news was reported, it could just be blamed on the media, and when positive news was reported, they could claim; "Even the liberal media sees it our way." It also puts the media in a position to drift slightly to the right to avoid the accusation of liberalism. Delegitimizing the media is seen as a legitimate way by some to protect those they support politically from the media's critical eye.
You are an ass hat.
Speaking of having it both ways, how could V.P. Spiro Agnew (elected in 1968) first float the idea of a liberal media when "conservative media outlets made bias the centerpiece of their explanation of the elections outcome?"
THE 1964 ELECTION outcome!!!
Ass hat.
Only the Right is too stupid to know that 1968 comes AFTER 1964!!!
The article was published on July 26, 2012. Only the Right-wing media would invent "data" from the future so no wonder you expected them to "report" on what had not happened yet.
Context is everything!
Note that Mitt Romney only won the Republican nomination on May 30th. Also note that they left out half of July and all of August, September, October, and November!!!!!
We processed 717 articles and 15,357 quotes collected between May 1 and July 15, 2012. - See more at: Liberal Media Bias: Fact or Fiction | Special Reports
Looks like you proved that there is no liberal bias by posting a biased poll.
as we see Liberals don't care as long as it's in their favor...Lamestream media-Pravda
SNIP:
Posted by Jim Hoft on Sunday, January 26, 2014, 1:27 AM
Textbook propaganda on display by the Democrat-media complex.
A traffic jam on a bridge versus four dead in Benghazi
Neil Cavuto put together this remarkable segment this week to show how the media reported the Bridgegate scandal, where there is no evidence Governor Christie knew about the bridge closing, versus the Benghazi scandal, where the Commander in Chief lied repeatedly to the American public about a protest and a YouTube video being involved.
This is not mere bias This is corruption and propaganda
1/24/14 Cavuto: Media bias, Hillary vs. Chris Christie - YouTube
there is no there there in bengazi and you refuse to accept the facts.
Its because you listen to fox news.
you are a perfect example of what fox does
With Gen. Dempsey beside him at the witness table, Mr. Panetta asserted that the U.S. military spared no effort to save the lives of Stevens, State Department officer Sean Smith and former Navy SEALs Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
He argued that the manner in which the violence unfolded in Benghazi with an attack on a diplomatic post, where Mr. Stevens is believed to have died, and a second on a nearby CIA annex, where the former SEALs were killed rendered an effective counterstrike or rescue attempt impossible.
These were actually two short-duration attacks that occurred some six hours apart, Mr. Panetta said. We were not dealing with a prolonged assault that could have been brought to an end by a U.S. military response.
The assertion drew a harsh criticism from Mr. Graham, who asked: Did you know how long the attack was going to last, Secretary Panetta?
No idea, the defense secretary responded.
Was any airplane launched anywhere in the world to help these people? pressed Mr. Graham as the tension filled the hearing room.
Mr. Panetta said C-130 aircraft were ultimately flown in to evacuate American survivors, but Mr. Dempsey responded that if Mr. Graham was talking about a strike aircraft, the answer was no.
"Well, it could have lasted two days!"
The article was published on July 26, 2012. Only the Right-wing media would invent "data" from the future so no wonder you expected them to "report" on what had not happened yet.
Context is everything!
Note that Mitt Romney only won the Republican nomination on May 30th. Also note that they left out half of July and all of August, September, October, and November!!!!!
We processed 717 articles and 15,357 quotes collected between May 1 and July 15, 2012. - See more at: Liberal Media Bias: Fact or Fiction | Special Reports
Looks like you proved that there is no liberal bias by posting a biased poll.
You are like the typical Right-wing media, you just make up shit, like Liberal media bias!The article was published on July 26, 2012. Only the Right-wing media would invent "data" from the future so no wonder you expected them to "report" on what had not happened yet.Context is everything!
Note that Mitt Romney only won the Republican nomination on May 30th. Also note that they left out half of July and all of August, September, October, and November!!!!!
Looks like you proved that there is no liberal bias by posting a biased poll.
Indeed the publishing date can be easily attributed to avoiding the season where media bias is most likely: Once the candidates have been chosen and campaigning begins. You cannot say that there is no liberal bias by pointing to the coverage of Romney vs. Obama when a chunk of your data came before Romney was the Republican nominee. At that time all republican candidates were getting hammered and lets not forget the Herman Cain scandal sucking the oxygen out of the room. Therefore, a comparison of Romney to Obama during this time period is like comparing apples to oranges. Also you cannot say that there is no liberal bias because Republican voices were quoted more often as the Republican primary was going on at the time and quite often republican voices are quoted for ridicule. Face it, the analysis of media bias you posted was a giant piece of junk.
There is one thing that it does demonstrate though. Romney's character was portrayed much more negatively than Obama in the media.
You are like the typical Right-wing media, you just make up shit, like Liberal media bias!The article was published on July 26, 2012. Only the Right-wing media would invent "data" from the future so no wonder you expected them to "report" on what had not happened yet.
Indeed the publishing date can be easily attributed to avoiding the season where media bias is most likely: Once the candidates have been chosen and campaigning begins. You cannot say that there is no liberal bias by pointing to the coverage of Romney vs. Obama when a chunk of your data came before Romney was the Republican nominee. At that time all republican candidates were getting hammered and lets not forget the Herman Cain scandal sucking the oxygen out of the room. Therefore, a comparison of Romney to Obama during this time period is like comparing apples to oranges. Also you cannot say that there is no liberal bias because Republican voices were quoted more often as the Republican primary was going on at the time and quite often republican voices are quoted for ridicule. Face it, the analysis of media bias you posted was a giant piece of junk.
There is one thing that it does demonstrate though. Romney's character was portrayed much more negatively than Obama in the media.
Cain dropped out of the race the early of Dec 2011. Santorum dropped out early April 2012. Gingrich officially dropped out May 2, 2012 but it was announced the week before.
Try again.
BBC has deep liberal bias, executive admits
The BBC has a deep liberal bias and has failed to reflect the publics growing concerns about immigration and the European Union, one of the corporations most senior executives has admitted.
Back to Bias Basics at PBS
A few years ago, the left pulled several muscles exerting itself with the strange theory that the Public Broadcasting Service was lurching dangerously to the right. When Corporation for Public Broadcasting Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson had the audacity not only to speak internal profanities ("fairness" and "balance"), but to try to build on them, it became clear to them that he was out of control and needed to be stopped.
Tomlinson made several small but significant steps toward balance on our taxpayer-subsidized airwaves, nudging the creation of two right-leaning talk programs "Tucker Carlson Unfiltered" and "The Journal Editorial Report" and both suffered from the TV equivalent of crib death.
Liberals really erupted when they learned Tomlinson secretly hired someone to assess the political balance of some PBS and NPR programs. This initiative was doomed, not only because the internal bureaucracy would never tolerate it, but because proving liberal bias at PBS is beyond easy. It's like proving Rosie O'Donnell has a liberal bias is it really necessary to conduct a study?
The left maintains an iron grip on PBS with all the maturity and sophistication that a 4-year-old hangs on to a Happy Meal toy. The motto of its public and private campaign against Tomlinson's alleged transgressions should have been: "Mine! Mine! All Mine!"
Tomlinson is long gone, and Democrats now control Congress. But another step was necessary for the re-emergence of classic PBS propaganda: the return of Bill Moyers. He was back to full-time fulminating duties on April 25, with a special titled "Buying the War." The entire thesis of this 90-minute taxpayer-funded lecture? The national media were willing cogs in the neoconservative machine that took America to war.
How is this for PBS balance: Moyers didn't allow a single conservative, neo- or otherwise, to challenge this ludicrous idea. Oh, there were assorted clips of conservatives (yours truly included) speaking in the months after 9/11, but only to "prove" his case for a noxious "patriotism police" that would not allow dissent.
He did invite far-left media critics like Eric Boehlert and Norman Solomon to echo his conspiracy theory that the major media were stuffed with sticky pro-Bush saps. But then, Moyers also added major media players, from disgraced CBS anchor Dan Rather to former CNN boss Walter Isaacson, to agree with him that they were all woefully lacking in antiwar fervor.
In the same week, defense expert Frank Gaffney was telling a far different story in fact, the opposite story.
Unlike Moyers, Gaffney had proof. Back in the Tomlinson era, CPB pursued the idea of a broad-based documentary series on how America would respond to the post-9/11 world. Gaffney's documentary proposal on "Islam vs. Islamism," focusing on moderate Muslims' efforts to challenge Islamofascists, was given a green light as one installment in the 11-part series called "America at the Crossroads."
But once Tomlinson was out, the permanent liberal bureaucracy kicked into gear. The series was shipped to PBS Washington, D.C., superstation WETA. It promptly expressed horror that anyone would allow Gaffney anywhere near a PBS production because of his "day job" with a conservative advocacy group. They wanted Gaffney fired as an executive producer. When that didn't happen, they censored the film, refusing to air it.
This is a clear double standard. Take Moyers as Exhibit A. Even as he constantly produces PBS programming, he has an advocacy-group job, as well, as president of the leftist Schumann Center for Media and Democracy and no one inside PBS has ever cared.
There was one "neo-con" film that did air in the series, titled "The Case for War," which starred conservative theorist Richard Perle. The PBS ombudsman, Michael Getler who, to be fair, has occasionally faulted shows for a liberal tilt came unglued that Perle was allowed so much access to PBS viewers.
"I personally find the decision to produce this film, as it has turned out, to be a stunning avoidance of the real crossroad that we are at and an abdication of journalistic principal (sic) on the most crucial issue of our time and our future," Getler protested on the PBS Website. "This was not the subject or the time, in my opinion, on which to have a 'point of view' film controlled by an advocate." Getler added that the film had a "propaganda tone," and "it is structured so that Perle always has the last word and controls the flow."
To Getler, it is an abdication of journalism to allow antiquated and disproven conservative arguments on PBS. But how could Getler watch the Moyers propaganda special and not see how that spectacle was obviously structured so that Moyers always had the last word the only word!
There is only one journalistic principle and one standard for the liberals who dominate PBS. It's mine. It's not yours.
L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. To find out more about Brent Bozell III, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at Creators.
COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
And there are ALWAYS those in the audience who will say, "well, I watch/listen to the BBC or PBS and THEY aren't liberally biased!"
And to those folks I say, "You are wrong!"
BBC has deep liberal bias, executive admits
The BBC has a deep liberal bias and has failed to reflect the publics growing concerns about immigration and the European Union, one of the corporations most senior executives has admitted.
BBC has deep liberal bias, executive admits - Telegraph
Back to Bias Basics at PBS
A few years ago, the left pulled several muscles exerting itself with the strange theory that the Public Broadcasting Service was lurching dangerously to the right. When Corporation for Public Broadcasting Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson had the audacity not only to speak internal profanities ("fairness" and "balance"), but to try to build on them, it became clear to them that he was out of control and needed to be stopped.
Tomlinson made several small but significant steps toward balance on our taxpayer-subsidized airwaves, nudging the creation of two right-leaning talk programs "Tucker Carlson Unfiltered" and "The Journal Editorial Report" and both suffered from the TV equivalent of crib death.
Liberals really erupted when they learned Tomlinson secretly hired someone to assess the political balance of some PBS and NPR programs. This initiative was doomed, not only because the internal bureaucracy would never tolerate it, but because proving liberal bias at PBS is beyond easy. It's like proving Rosie O'Donnell has a liberal bias is it really necessary to conduct a study?
The left maintains an iron grip on PBS with all the maturity and sophistication that a 4-year-old hangs on to a Happy Meal toy. The motto of its public and private campaign against Tomlinson's alleged transgressions should have been: "Mine! Mine! All Mine!"
Tomlinson is long gone, and Democrats now control Congress. But another step was necessary for the re-emergence of classic PBS propaganda: the return of Bill Moyers. He was back to full-time fulminating duties on April 25, with a special titled "Buying the War." The entire thesis of this 90-minute taxpayer-funded lecture? The national media were willing cogs in the neoconservative machine that took America to war.
How is this for PBS balance: Moyers didn't allow a single conservative, neo- or otherwise, to challenge this ludicrous idea. Oh, there were assorted clips of conservatives (yours truly included) speaking in the months after 9/11, but only to "prove" his case for a noxious "patriotism police" that would not allow dissent.
He did invite far-left media critics like Eric Boehlert and Norman Solomon to echo his conspiracy theory that the major media were stuffed with sticky pro-Bush saps. But then, Moyers also added major media players, from disgraced CBS anchor Dan Rather to former CNN boss Walter Isaacson, to agree with him that they were all woefully lacking in antiwar fervor.
In the same week, defense expert Frank Gaffney was telling a far different story in fact, the opposite story.
Unlike Moyers, Gaffney had proof. Back in the Tomlinson era, CPB pursued the idea of a broad-based documentary series on how America would respond to the post-9/11 world. Gaffney's documentary proposal on "Islam vs. Islamism," focusing on moderate Muslims' efforts to challenge Islamofascists, was given a green light as one installment in the 11-part series called "America at the Crossroads."
But once Tomlinson was out, the permanent liberal bureaucracy kicked into gear. The series was shipped to PBS Washington, D.C., superstation WETA. It promptly expressed horror that anyone would allow Gaffney anywhere near a PBS production because of his "day job" with a conservative advocacy group. They wanted Gaffney fired as an executive producer. When that didn't happen, they censored the film, refusing to air it.
This is a clear double standard. Take Moyers as Exhibit A. Even as he constantly produces PBS programming, he has an advocacy-group job, as well, as president of the leftist Schumann Center for Media and Democracy and no one inside PBS has ever cared.
There was one "neo-con" film that did air in the series, titled "The Case for War," which starred conservative theorist Richard Perle. The PBS ombudsman, Michael Getler who, to be fair, has occasionally faulted shows for a liberal tilt came unglued that Perle was allowed so much access to PBS viewers.
"I personally find the decision to produce this film, as it has turned out, to be a stunning avoidance of the real crossroad that we are at and an abdication of journalistic principal (sic) on the most crucial issue of our time and our future," Getler protested on the PBS Website. "This was not the subject or the time, in my opinion, on which to have a 'point of view' film controlled by an advocate." Getler added that the film had a "propaganda tone," and "it is structured so that Perle always has the last word and controls the flow."
To Getler, it is an abdication of journalism to allow antiquated and disproven conservative arguments on PBS. But how could Getler watch the Moyers propaganda special and not see how that spectacle was obviously structured so that Moyers always had the last word the only word!
There is only one journalistic principle and one standard for the liberals who dominate PBS. It's mine. It's not yours.
L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. To find out more about Brent Bozell III, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at Creators.
COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Back to Bias Basics at PBS by L. Brent Bozell on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
Brent Bozo isn't biased at all!And there are ALWAYS those in the audience who will say, "well, I watch/listen to the BBC or PBS and THEY aren't liberally biased!"
And to those folks I say, "You are wrong!"
BBC has deep liberal bias, executive admits
The BBC has a deep liberal bias and has failed to reflect the publics growing concerns about immigration and the European Union, one of the corporations most senior executives has admitted.
BBC has deep liberal bias, executive admits - Telegraph
Back to Bias Basics at PBS
A few years ago, the left pulled several muscles exerting itself with the strange theory that the Public Broadcasting Service was lurching dangerously to the right. When Corporation for Public Broadcasting Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson had the audacity not only to speak internal profanities ("fairness" and "balance"), but to try to build on them, it became clear to them that he was out of control and needed to be stopped.
Tomlinson made several small but significant steps toward balance on our taxpayer-subsidized airwaves, nudging the creation of two right-leaning talk programs "Tucker Carlson Unfiltered" and "The Journal Editorial Report" and both suffered from the TV equivalent of crib death.
Liberals really erupted when they learned Tomlinson secretly hired someone to assess the political balance of some PBS and NPR programs. This initiative was doomed, not only because the internal bureaucracy would never tolerate it, but because proving liberal bias at PBS is beyond easy. It's like proving Rosie O'Donnell has a liberal bias is it really necessary to conduct a study?
The left maintains an iron grip on PBS with all the maturity and sophistication that a 4-year-old hangs on to a Happy Meal toy. The motto of its public and private campaign against Tomlinson's alleged transgressions should have been: "Mine! Mine! All Mine!"
Tomlinson is long gone, and Democrats now control Congress. But another step was necessary for the re-emergence of classic PBS propaganda: the return of Bill Moyers. He was back to full-time fulminating duties on April 25, with a special titled "Buying the War." The entire thesis of this 90-minute taxpayer-funded lecture? The national media were willing cogs in the neoconservative machine that took America to war.
How is this for PBS balance: Moyers didn't allow a single conservative, neo- or otherwise, to challenge this ludicrous idea. Oh, there were assorted clips of conservatives (yours truly included) speaking in the months after 9/11, but only to "prove" his case for a noxious "patriotism police" that would not allow dissent.
He did invite far-left media critics like Eric Boehlert and Norman Solomon to echo his conspiracy theory that the major media were stuffed with sticky pro-Bush saps. But then, Moyers also added major media players, from disgraced CBS anchor Dan Rather to former CNN boss Walter Isaacson, to agree with him that they were all woefully lacking in antiwar fervor.
In the same week, defense expert Frank Gaffney was telling a far different story in fact, the opposite story.
Unlike Moyers, Gaffney had proof. Back in the Tomlinson era, CPB pursued the idea of a broad-based documentary series on how America would respond to the post-9/11 world. Gaffney's documentary proposal on "Islam vs. Islamism," focusing on moderate Muslims' efforts to challenge Islamofascists, was given a green light as one installment in the 11-part series called "America at the Crossroads."
But once Tomlinson was out, the permanent liberal bureaucracy kicked into gear. The series was shipped to PBS Washington, D.C., superstation WETA. It promptly expressed horror that anyone would allow Gaffney anywhere near a PBS production because of his "day job" with a conservative advocacy group. They wanted Gaffney fired as an executive producer. When that didn't happen, they censored the film, refusing to air it.
This is a clear double standard. Take Moyers as Exhibit A. Even as he constantly produces PBS programming, he has an advocacy-group job, as well, as president of the leftist Schumann Center for Media and Democracy and no one inside PBS has ever cared.
There was one "neo-con" film that did air in the series, titled "The Case for War," which starred conservative theorist Richard Perle. The PBS ombudsman, Michael Getler who, to be fair, has occasionally faulted shows for a liberal tilt came unglued that Perle was allowed so much access to PBS viewers.
"I personally find the decision to produce this film, as it has turned out, to be a stunning avoidance of the real crossroad that we are at and an abdication of journalistic principal (sic) on the most crucial issue of our time and our future," Getler protested on the PBS Website. "This was not the subject or the time, in my opinion, on which to have a 'point of view' film controlled by an advocate." Getler added that the film had a "propaganda tone," and "it is structured so that Perle always has the last word and controls the flow."
To Getler, it is an abdication of journalism to allow antiquated and disproven conservative arguments on PBS. But how could Getler watch the Moyers propaganda special and not see how that spectacle was obviously structured so that Moyers always had the last word the only word!
There is only one journalistic principle and one standard for the liberals who dominate PBS. It's mine. It's not yours.
L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. To find out more about Brent Bozell III, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at Creators.
COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
Back to Bias Basics at PBS by L. Brent Bozell on Creators.com - A Syndicate Of Talent
