Liberal Media Conspiracy

[Truthmatters]

Sorry, bozo, I'm fairly fearless but not interested in putting all my personal info out there...you can believe me or not.

Its not that I dont believe you , I was wondering what paper.

If its that small that we would instantly know who you are then ,yes, dont tell the name here.

 

[editec]

There IS a liberal media conspiracy.

The facts keep conspiring to make the Republicans look bad, and the media keeps reporting those facts.

 

[sealybobo]

i don't get air america where i live and i can assure you it's about the bluest state there is. what color is the sky where you live?

I bet you get Rush though.

Funny that you guys call the media liberal and yet you don't even have THE ONLY liberal radio station.

And if you live in "the bluest" of states, why is Rush being aired and not Randi Rhodes? Can't be that blue.

Where do you live? I will check to see if you get Air America and/or Nova M Radio. What city and state do you live in? They don't get the best channels, so you might get them on some AM channel and you don't even know it.

 

[del]

I bet you get Rush though.

Funny that you guys call the media liberal and yet you don't even have THE ONLY liberal radio station.

And if you live in "the bluest" of states, why is Rush being aired and not Randi Rhodes? Can't be that blue.

Where do you live? I will check to see if you get Air America and/or Nova M Radio. What city and state do you live in? They don't get the best channels, so you might get them on some AM channel and you don't even know it.

first, show me where i've called the media liberal. then you can tell me what rush has said over the past 15 years because i don't listen to him.

yes, he's broadcast in the local market. i think air america was here for awhile too, but they went tits up because no one listened to them so they couldn't sell advertising. you do know that's the point of the exercise, right, to sell advertising?

if that bozo rush could build a huge audience embracing so-called liberal ideologies, do you think he wouldn't?

most people consider massachusetts to be pretty blue.

you may feel otherwise.

 

[sealybobo]

first, show me where i've called the media liberal. then you can tell me what rush has said over the past 15 years because i don't listen to him.

yes, he's broadcast in the local market. i think air america was here for awhile too, but they went tits up because no one listened to them so they couldn't sell advertising. you do know that's the point of the exercise, right, to sell advertising?

if that bozo rush could build a huge audience embracing so-called liberal ideologies, do you think he wouldn't?

most people consider massachusetts to be pretty blue.

you may feel otherwise.

Here in Michigan, they give Air America & Nova M Radio the worst radio stations. But Rush gets the best radio stations. I can get rush's radio station anywhere in the state. But not Air America/Nova M. I get Air America BARELY where I live on the AM and Nova M ONLY in Ann Arbor. How many people are going to deal with this?

And isn't it funny that you and I live in very blue states yet there is more of a market for Rush than there is Randi Rhodes?

Either all things are not fair or liberals/independents/democrats don't care as much about listening to politics when they drive in their cars.

No one in my office listens to Rush or Air America. Only die hards listen to political talk radio in their cars. I think there may be more DIE HARD conservatives that are interested in Rush than there are die hard Democrats that listen to Randi.

But I do know that Randi has beaten Rush in certain markets and Clearchannel still won't put her up against him. They are afraid she'll beat him. And they don't want that message getting out.

No, its not all about ratings/advertising. Rupert Murdoc and his sponsors like Rush's message, so they advertise on his show. He is pro corporations. Randi wants their advertising dollars too, but they don't like her message.

Remember Imus? No matter how good his ratings were, advertisers didn't want to be associated with him. So if they don't like Randi's message.....

And like I said, Randi's radio stations are not the best, so who wants to advertise on a crappy radio channel that gets horrible reception.

Time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. You guys made good points on why we should get rid of it, but you also showed us why it existed in the first place.

 

[Luissa]

Here in Michigan, they give Air America & Nova M Radio the worst radio stations. But Rush gets the best radio stations. I can get rush's radio station anywhere in the state. But not Air America/Nova M. I get Air America BARELY where I live on the AM and Nova M ONLY in Ann Arbor. How many people are going to deal with this?

And isn't it funny that you and I live in very blue states yet there is more of a market for Rush than there is Randi Rhodes?

Either all things are not fair or liberals/independents/democrats don't care as much about listening to politics when they drive in their cars.

No one in my office listens to Rush or Air America. Only die hards listen to political talk radio in their cars. I think there may be more DIE HARD conservatives that are interested in Rush than there are die hard Democrats that listen to Randi.

But I do know that Randi has beaten Rush in certain markets and Clearchannel still won't put her up against him. They are afraid she'll beat him. And they don't want that message getting out.

No, its not all about ratings/advertising. Rupert Murdoc and his sponsors like Rush's message, so they advertise on his show. He is pro corporations. Randi wants their advertising dollars too, but they don't like her message.

Remember Imus? No matter how good his ratings were, advertisers didn't want to be associated with him. So if they don't like Randi's message.....

And like I said, Randi's radio stations are not the best, so who wants to advertise on a crappy radio channel that gets horrible reception.

Time to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. You guys made good points on why we should get rid of it, but you also showed us why it existed in the first place.

I would have to agree with you on that one! Rush and the other right wing talking heads always have nice clear signals while Air America some how always has signal problems and I live in Washington which is pretty liberal.Also the only political talk show host on one of the three major network radio stations is conservative here. The best part is it used to be this guy and Mark Furhman, talk about a right wing slant!
I do have to say I listen to Hannity almost as much as I listen to Randi Rhodes, for one you have to know what the other side is talking about!

 

[sealybobo]

I would have to agree with you on that one! Rush and the other right wing talking heads always have nice clear signals while Air America some how always has signal problems and I live in Washington which is pretty liberal.Also the only political talk show host on one of the three major network radio stations is conservative here. The best part is it used to be this guy and Mark Furhman, talk about a right wing slant!
I do have to say I listen to Hannity almost as much as I listen to Randi Rhodes, for one you have to know what the other side is talking about!

All the good channels have been purchased by the big corporate media giants like Clearchannel. If they have an agenda, which clearly they do, then they don't want to give progressive talk radio a chance, even if it will make them $. For example, if Randi is talking about the Fairness Doctrine, that is not something Clearchannel wants to promote. That would actually hurt their corporate profits if they had to break up their monopolies.

They tell us if there was a market for it, the radio giants would buy it because all they care about is making money. But the fact is, what the Democrats are saying will cost them money. If they get tax breaks that are greater than the money they would make from advertising, then fuck the advertising. And they can always find another corporation to advertise on their conservative shows, even if they do suck.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, she told me once. It was some podunk red neck gazette type paper she worked for. She claims that the editors/reporters all sat around plotting how they could put the most liberal spin on stories.

How Allie got into social work I have no clue. Usually people go into that because they want to help people. I think Allie went in with the hopes of purging people from the welfare roles.

But yea Allie, its not like we will call the paper and say Alliebaba told us.....

Just say you worked for a small paper in Alabama or West Virginia. You don't have to tell us the name. But then again, how many liberal media's do you think there are in those states?

And I find it funny that people from red states call the media liberal when for one, they don't even hear any of the liberal media programs because the corporations do not allow liberal shows to be broadcast in a lot of red states. Why would they want those brainwashed people hearing the truth?

Air America Radio is one example. Allie probably doesn't even get it where she lives. So she doesn't know what a real liberal program even sounds like.

You're just waving your bigotry out there.

I love it when someone assumes that because you don't live in NYC or LA, you're a redneck podunk. Almost as entertaining is being called a liar because you don't fit the stereotype said bigots have.

Anyway, I've worked as a journalist off and on spanning 20 years. I've always been involved in human services. First working with juveniles in detention, then as a legal secretary, then in treatment, then in a jail, and now as a caseworker. I think the primary objective should ALWAYS be to get people off the welfare rolls...i.e., help them be self sufficient. That's what we're called now...Department of Human Services, Self Sufficiency.

 

[Luissa]

You're just waving your bigotry out there.

I love it when someone assumes that because you don't live in NYC or LA, you're a redneck podunk. Almost as entertaining is being called a liar because you don't fit the stereotype said bigots have.

Anyway, I've worked as a journalist off and on spanning 20 years. I've always been involved in human services. First working with juveniles in detention, then as a legal secretary, then in treatment, then in a jail, and now as a caseworker. I think the primary objective should ALWAYS be to get people off the welfare rolls...i.e., help them be self sufficient. That's what we're called now...Department of Human Services, Self Sufficiency.

I love how you love to call other people bigots when you do the same exact same thing they do!
"What you have is the leftist media conviction that they know what is best for the world, compounded by a complete lack of ethics." Alliebaba
In the statement you are being a bigot because you assume someone you doesn't have the same politcal views as you has no ethics.
Oh! and here is another example: "I don't know why you're so surprised. This is liberalism at it's best. I'm curious why you still subscribe to an ideology that will always land you in this situation. Liberalism is the scion of euthanasia, population control, the demolition of religion, church and freedom of speech."Alliebaba

Then there is your many rants on how liberal don't support the troops and support terrorism!

 

[morpheus]

It's a fact. It wasn't something created by Fox news. Fox is the #1 news network because people know what the leftist media does, and were relieved to have a more reasonable and ethical network to turn to.

FOX is the #1 news network because the so-called "liberal" cable news networks (CNN and MSNBC) and the broadcast networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) divide the remaining share of viewers between them, and in fact have a larger combined share of viewers than FOX. In fact, Nielsen Media Research reports a much larger growth in primetime viewership for MSNBC and CNN in 2008, than for FOX, according to this article from the Los Angeles Times, owned by the conservative-leaning Tribune Corporation.

FOX relies on sensationalism and fallacious reporting to attract viewers. For example, whenever a Republican politician is caught in a scandal, they often place a "D" in the caption at the bottom of the screen, to mislead their viewers into believing that the fallen politician is a Democrat. FOX supporters brush this off as an "error", but the fact that it happens often, points to deliberate attempts to mislead the public. Below are two separate instances when FOX placed a "D" next to the same politician's name:

Mark Foley, if you all remember, is the congressman caught with soliciting sex from high school interns. He is a Republican.

The Tube only reports on certain stories.

In the lead up to the Iraq war they did not report 1/3rd of what the rest of the world was reporting. They are a little better now.

Correct. There's a lot that was never reported n the US media. One very prominent example is the difference in how the US media reported Colin Powell's address to the Security Council versus Mohamed El-Baradei's. Colin Powell's address to the Security Council, the infamous speech where he presented flimsy "satellite evidence" that Saddam Hussein was possessing nuclear arms, was broadcast repeatedly on American television. International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) Secretary General Mohamed El-Baradei (whose agency would know if yellowcake had been smuggled out of Niger) also addressed the Security Council, questioning the Bush administration's allegations, but this was never shown on American television. Funny thing is, we now know that the yellowcake allegation was completely fabricated, and Colin Powell has admitted that he didn't believe what he was trying to sell to the Security Council that day.

Additionally, most of the mainstream US media -particularly the television networks- failed to question the Bush administration's plans to invade Iraq back in 2002, and they were the administration's biggest cheerleaders throughout 2003 and most of 2004. Criticism started to trinkle in when it was too late. And even then, retired generals with ties to the defense industry were continually sent by the Pentagon to major US television networks and even NPR to pose as "objective military analysts", as part of the Pentagon's covert psy-ops operation on the American public to promote favourable views of the administration and Iraq war. The New York Times broke the story in April 2008:

To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks

Complete NYT article: Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand

 

[alan1]

Liberal media bias or not?
You be the judge,

"There was this great story in The Atlantic this month about your philanthropy, the CGI [Clinton Global Initiative] and your other activities at the foundation. And the author says you're basically re-inventing philanthropy, or trying to re-invent philanthropy....He writes that, 'as a result of this, history may remember Bill Clinton as the philanthropist who happened to be President.' You okay with that?"

-- ABC's George Stephanopoulos to his former boss, ex-President Bill Clinton, on This Week, September 30

"Joe Scarborough did a whole week of panel discussions on whether he [President Bush] was an idiot....People who were defending him were saying, 'Well, he's just inarticulate.' But inarticulate doesn't explain foreign policy. I mean, it's not that complicated. The man is a rube. He is a dolt. He is a yokel on the world stage. He is a Gilligan who cannot find his ass with two hands. He is a vain half-wit who interrupts one incoherent sentence with another incoherent sentence. And I hope I'm not piling on, Jay."

-- HBO's Bill Maher on NBC's Tonight Show, Feb. 20.

"Each and every candidate [in] each and every campaign is forced to respond to this litmus test of 'No New Taxes.' How are we gonna get taxes passed when you can't get anything done in the Congress?...Government's gotta get bigger to help governors in various states."

-- Fill-in host Mike Barnicle leading a panel discussion on MSNBC's Hardball, August 2

Host George Stephanopoulos: "You were Secretary of Energy. Energy independence, as you say, is going to be one of the number one issues in the campaign. And you've talked about alternative energy. But isn't it going to take real sacrifice, real cutbacks in consumption if we're going to be energy independent?...Higher gas taxes?"

Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM): "It's going to be a collaborative effort. No, you don't have to do it with taxes...."

Stephanopoulos: "But aren't higher energy taxes the best way to get people to conserve?"

-- ABC's This Week, January 21.

"More than 46 million Americans have no health insurance. So when it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and good health, all men are not created equal."

-- Katie Couric introducing a story about a doctor who cares for poor patients, March 12 CBS Evening News.
BB Note: Holy shit, she just flat out lied about a founding document of this nation.

"When doctors pronounced the Rev. Jerry Laymon Falwell Sr. dead at 12:40 p.m. EST Tuesday....my first thoughts were not of what to say or write. In fact, my very first thought upon hearing of the Rev. Falwell's passing was: Good. And I didn't mean 'good' in a oh-good-he's-gone-home-to-be-with-the-Lord kind of way. I meant 'good' as in 'Ding-dong, the witch is dead.'"

-- Chicago Sun-Times columnist Cathleen Falsani in her May 18 piece, "Sigh of relief over Falwell death."

ABC's Sam Donaldson: "[Senator Barack Obama is] an African-American. Is the country ready? Well, I think it is. And he said he thinks it is. He said he thinks he'll lose some votes because of that, and so the question is, what does the word 'some' mean?..."

Moderator George Stephanopoulos: "Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm naive, but Sam, I guess I think that anyone who's not going to vote for Barack Obama because he is black isn't going to vote for a Democrat anyway."

-- Exchange on ABC's This Week, May 13

"For the first time in the 218-year history of the Congress, a woman was voted by her colleagues to be Speaker of the House. Nancy Pelosi, Democrat from California, took the gavel. But in a picture perhaps even more symbolic, the new Speaker was on the floor for a time, holding her 6-year-old [6-month-old] grandson, all the while giving directions on how events were to proceed. It seemed the ultimate in multitasking: Taking care of the children, and the country."

-- ABC World News anchor
Charles Gibson, Jan. 4

"Al Qaeda really hurt us, but not as much as Rupert Murdoch has hurt us, particularly in the case of Fox News. Fox News is worse than Al Qaeda -- worse for our society. It's as dangerous as the Ku Klux Klan ever was."

-- MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann in an interview with Playboy magazine, October issue.

"When I watched him [former President Bill Clinton] at Mrs. King's funeral, I just have never seen anything like it....There are times when he sounds like Jesus in the temple. I mean, amazing ability to transcend ethnicity -- race, we call it, it's really ethnicity -- in this country and, and speak to us all in this amazingly primordial way."

-- Chris Matthews, MSNBC's Hardball, Feb. 28.
BB Note: Wow, he just put Bill Clinton and Jesus on the same level.

"Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform....We pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?...[T]he recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary -- oops sorry, volunteer -- force that thinks it is doing the dirty work."

-- WashingtonPost.com military columnist William Arkin in a January 30 column reacting to a report by NBC reporter Richard Engel. Arkin later apologized for using the word "mercenary."

"I'm just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That's a fact."

-- Host Bill Maher on his HBO show Real Time, March 2, discussing how a few commenters at a left-wing blog were upset that an attempt to kill Vice President Cheney in Afghanistan had failed.

 

[morpheus]

BatBoy,

Most of these examples are laughable. A few, however, are somewhat plausible; but the best you can do is publish some anti-Bush opinions from Bill Maher, and George Stephanopoulos praising Clinton as a philanthropist, and Keith Olbermann criticizing Bill O'Reilly in Playboy; neither of these guys tried to masquerade their opinions as "news". Additionally, anti-Bush doesn't have to mean anti-conservative, and the more you refuse to distance yourselves from him, the more you discredit yourselves as a party and ideology. The Falwell example seems like a good one, but then again, after Falwell rabidly accused liberals of staging the 9/11 terror attacks, and regularly went on hateful diatribes, Cathleen Falsani's comment was ridiculously tame. The Chicago Sun-Times openly leans Democrat anyways, and -again- it was an opinion editorial. The Katie Couric quote is a classic example of how some conservatives will misconstrue almost anything to fit the "liberal bias" conspiracy; if simply pointing out problems in our coutry -like 46 million Americans without healthcare- is a "liberal bias", then I guess she's guilty? No where in that quote does she endorse a liberal solution to the problem over a conservative solution; even McCain acknowledged this problem, and he at least proposed a more conservative-based solution to this problem, rather than deny the problem's existence. The Nancy Pelosi example, I fail to see a liberal bias or opinion here. Do you have any examples of where the media outright lies or misleads or masquerades opinion as "news", serving some sort of "liberal" interest? Do you think you can come up with the liberal equivalent of conservative lies and cover-ups that I brought up in my previous post? Give it a shot.

 

[sealybobo]

Since this forms a central part of the Conservative ideology I was wondering if and Conservatives would like to expalin how this conspiracy works. Who runs it? Why do the big corporations want a liberal slant to the news? What role do advertisers like GM, Ford and other giant corporations that fund the media play in this?

I was watching Chris Matthews last night and I want to call BULLSHIT on him being a liberal. If he is, he is a lousy one.

And keep in mind when Bill O'Reilly & Glenn Beck first started out, they too tried to pass themselves off as something other than conservatives.

Anyways, in regards to that comment Chris made about Obama sending shivers up his leg. That doesn't prove anything. In fact, I think he said that on purpose. Why would he do that? Well just look at how hard all conservatives try to pretend that the media has a liberal bias.

So every once in awhile Chris Matthews agrees with the democrats position. Does that make him liberal? I don't think so.

Here's why I think he's a fraud. Last night he had on Tom Delay. He let Tom Delay say whatever bullshit Tom wanted to say and COMPLETELY UNCHALLANGED.

Then Chris said, "Tom Delay, you are welcome on my show anytime".

Boy, for a liberal, he sure did the conservatives a good deed by letting them get their message across loud and clear.

PS. Tom Delay is a very scary man. I think I can hold my own, but I wouldn't want to debate that guy. He would chew you up and spit you out. He was talking shit about Obama and the stimulus bill and I don't even know how I would have responded to him if I was face to face with him. He is very good. Wrong, but good.

 

[editec]

It's not a conspiracy?

It's a confederacy of dunces.

 

[sealybobo]

It's not a conspiracy?

It's a confederacy of dunces.

Last night, that stupid girl from the View was on Leno, and she got me thinking. Jay was asking her why Conservatives today seem so loud. They're always screaming/yelling Jay said.

Then she said, "well, Olbermann is kind of loud, and Chris Matthews......"

And that's when it hit me. Chris Matthews is not a fucking liberal. At best he is a moderate/centrist.

And we didn't pick him to champion our cause. So who did? I say, the Corporate Media did.

Who picked mild mannered Rachel Maddow?

Who picked Ed Schultz to be a guest on Larry King or MSNBC?

I'll tell you who. Corporate Fat Cats.

These liberal hosts are lame. Where is our version of Rush Limbaugh who will say anything?

In order to qualify, he/she must be saying things like, "the federal Reserve needs to be nationalized".

Thom Hartmann would qualify. Randi Rhodes would qualify. But Corporate TV News channels are not going to let them on the air.

So you can keep Chris Matthews. He is not a liberal. He does not speak for us. He is just a plant. A spy. Just because he said Obama sent shivers up his leg, is not enough for me to consider him a leader of the liberal movement.

So this is why the Corporate Media is Conservative. It has been purchased by mega corporations. And they put on who they say we can watch. And they tell that person what they can talk about.

Sure it might sound liberal, but its controlled by conservatives.

And last night, MSNBC had a really loud and obnoxious Republican radio host on arguing with the liberals. Why isn't MSNBC considered conservative for having that guy on? If they have even one left voice, the whole show is deemed liberal.

Republicans are so full of shit when it comes to this. But it works on the masses. Most people think Chris Matthews is some flaming liberal. HA!

 

[sealybobo]

It's not a conspiracy?

It's a confederacy of dunces.

Republicans, stop lying! Or maybe you don't even realize that you are FOS.

The Media is not liberal anymore. Not since it was all gobbled up by a few mega corporations.

The media do not have a liberal bias. Conservatives even admit it.
“Years ago, Republican party chair Rich Bond explained that conservatives' frequent denunciations of ‘liberal bias’ in the media were part of ‘a strategy’ (Washington Post, 8/20/92).
“Bill Kristol ‘The press isn't quite as biased and liberal. They're actually conservative sometimes,’ Kristol said recently on CNN.
Kristol offered up in the spring of 1995. ‘I admit it,’ Kristol told The New Yorker. ‘The whole idea of the 'liberal media' was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.’”
“‘The truth is, I've gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive,’ [Patrick] Buchanan acknowledged in March 1996. He added: ‘I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage -- all we could have asked.’”
The average liberal legislator has a better than 30 percent greater likelihood of being given a political label than the average conservative does. The press describes [Barney] Frank as a liberal two-and-a-half times as frequently as it describes [Dick] Armey as a conservative. It labels [Barbara] Boxer almost twice as often as it labels [Trent] Lott, and labels [Paul] Wellstone more often than [Jesse] Helms.”
The findings include:
 • On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.
 • Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.
 • The minority of journalists who do not identify with the ‘center’ are more likely to identify with the ‘right’ when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the ‘left’ when it comes to social issues.”
[T]he larger fallacy of the ‘liberal media’ argument is the idea that reporters and mid-level editors set the editorial agenda at their news organizations. In reality, most journalists have about as much say over what is presented by newspapers and TV news programs as factory workers and foremen have over what a factory manufactures...
But media owners historically have enforced their political views and other preferences by installing senior editors whose careers depend on delivering a news product that fits with the owner’s prejudices. Mid-level editors and reporters who stray too far from the prescribed path can expect to be demoted or fired. Editorial employees intuitively understand the career risks of going beyond the boundaries.
These limitations were true a century ago when William Randolph Hearst famously studied every day’s paper from his publishing empire looking for signs of leftist attitudes among his staff. And it is still true in the days of Rupert Murdoch, Jack Welch and the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.”
It took conservatives a lot of hard and steady work to push the media rightward. It dishonors that work to continue to presume that -- except for a few liberal columnists -- there is any such thing as the big liberal media. The media world now includes (1) talk radio, (2) cable television and (3) the traditional news sources (newspapers, newsmagazines and the old broadcast networks). Two of these three major institutions tilt well to the right, and the third is under constant pressure to avoid even the pale hint of liberalism. These institutions, in turn, influence the burgeoning world of online news and commentary.”
“The biggest lie fed the American people by conservative pundits is that the United States is dominated by the ‘liberal media.’ As if Rupert Murdoch, Michael Eisner, General Electric, Time-Warner AOL and Viacom are owned and operated by liberals.
“Not only are these folks ultra-conservatives, but the people they hire to voice their opinions are so far to the right, they give independent journalism a dirty name. No, my friends, the corporate media is in the hands of right-wing kooks parading as moderates and pushing the political envelope further and further to the right.”
Myths Debunked - The Liberal Media

 

[sealybobo]

On Sunday CNN had a right winger on saying the media is liberal. The guy pointed to the free pass Obama got during the election.

FIrst off, he's wrong about Obama getting a free pass, but I guess that is his opinion. It isn't, however, a fact.

Anyways, the CNN host said, "well, haven't we been tougher on Obama lately"? And the guest said, "at least you are admitting that you were going easy on him before".

First off, that CNN host does not represent liberals or progressives. Why didn't they have a liberal on to combat the bullshit this right winger was saying.

So for those of you who think CNN is a liberal media station, wake up.

And if the media is liberal, I hope conservatives join with us to get some fairness back into the media. If the media is so overwhelmingly liberal, maybe we need to bring the fairness doctrine back. GOP are you with me?

 

[AllieBaba]

More convoluted posturing by the left as they scramble to marginalize the right. It is common knowledge (and everyone but the elite knows it) that the liberal media distorts, makes and buries the news as it sees fit.

Examples of liberal media bias:

New Gingrich's $400,000 book deal while he was in Congress resulted in world-wide hate fest. But Hillary's $8 million book deal brought nothing but kudos for her.

60 minutes presented a piece on Michael Bray, an anti-abortion activist who condones violence, with the slant that he has the support of the majority of those who oppose abortion. Jen Roth, a liberal, was even disgusted. Response to Michael Bray's Appearance on 60 Minutes

"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this purpose in many ways: through the selection of topics, distribution of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises." Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), Pantheon Books, NY

"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 how we will slant the news. It comes naturally to most reporters"
CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg, Feb 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed.
Source - Times Mirror Center for the people and the Press, May 1995



On the 1992 anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the news was about the Roe v. Wade case, not about the tens of thousands who were protesting it.

And let's consider the media treatment of Anita Hill, who was broadcast live as she attempted to ruin the career of Clarence Thomas..and Paula Jones, who was attacked by Bill Clinton when he was the gov. of Arkansas. Jones has been caricatured as a white trash flake, while Anita was glorified.

They use misleading headlines, and bury stories. For example, they use terms like "gutting" when they refer to Republican medicare trimming proposals..but they use "trimming" when Democrats make the same (or more drastic) proposals.

In 10 days in 1988 4 networks aired 51 evening news stories solely on Quayle's National Guard service, while at the same time questioning "controversies" during the Republican national convention coverage. But the same networks aired only 13 stories in the first 10 days after the news of Clinton's draft-dodging broke.

 

[AllieBaba]

Oh, and here is some more examples of liberal media bias:
"Proving that the left cannot tell the difference between “racism” and “criticism,” the AP posted a lengthy March 30 story confusing and conflating the two as it pertains to attacks on President Obama."
Racial Slurs Continue Against Obama Despite Historic Achievement - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com


The New York Times killed stories of Obama's links to vote fraud/ACORN during the campaign:
"According to election fraud lawyer Heather Heidelbaugh, The New York Times decided suddenly to drop all efforts last October to publish stories about the Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) because it came to light that ACORN was a big donor to then presidential candidate Barack Obama’s campaign. The Times is said to have told ACORN insider Anita Moncrief that they were dropping the story because it was a “game changer” for the election and might hurt Obama’s campaign."
'New York Times' Spiked Obama Donor Story - The Philadelphia Bulletin Archives


Hillary made a couple of huge diplomatic blunders during her visit to Mexico that we aren't seeing on the news. #1, she told Mexican officials that the US gov't is considering re-upping the assault rifle ban because Mexican drug violence is the "fault" of the US.

Whoops, gotta run

 

[sealybobo]

More convoluted posturing by the left as they scramble to marginalize the right. It is common knowledge (and everyone but the elite knows it) that the liberal media distorts, makes and buries the news as it sees fit.

Examples of liberal media bias:

New Gingrich's $400,000 book deal while he was in Congress resulted in world-wide hate fest. But Hillary's $8 million book deal brought nothing but kudos for her.

60 minutes presented a piece on Michael Bray, an anti-abortion activist who condones violence, with the slant that he has the support of the majority of those who oppose abortion. Jen Roth, a liberal, was even disgusted. Response to Michael Bray's Appearance on 60 Minutes

"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this purpose in many ways: through the selection of topics, distribution of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises." Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), Pantheon Books, NY

"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 how we will slant the news. It comes naturally to most reporters"
CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg, Feb 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed.
Source - Times Mirror Center for the people and the Press, May 1995



On the 1992 anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the news was about the Roe v. Wade case, not about the tens of thousands who were protesting it.

And let's consider the media treatment of Anita Hill, who was broadcast live as she attempted to ruin the career of Clarence Thomas..and Paula Jones, who was attacked by Bill Clinton when he was the gov. of Arkansas. Jones has been caricatured as a white trash flake, while Anita was glorified.

They use misleading headlines, and bury stories. For example, they use terms like "gutting" when they refer to Republican medicare trimming proposals..but they use "trimming" when Democrats make the same (or more drastic) proposals.

In 10 days in 1988 4 networks aired 51 evening news stories solely on Quayle's National Guard service, while at the same time questioning "controversies" during the Republican national convention coverage. But the same networks aired only 13 stories in the first 10 days after the news of Clinton's draft-dodging broke.

Pretty damn good rebuttal. I could argue back, but it wouldn't settle anything.

You gave some pretty damn good examples of liberal bias.

I could give you just as many examples to show you that the media is more favorable to the Right, but that would explain the points you made.

So whats going on?

My side thinks they went too easy on Bush and your side thinks they are going too easy on Obama. I don't want them to go easy on any of them.

The media is sort of our last line of defense when it comes to corruption. We need the media to be tough on both parties. You admit they aren't tough enough on Dems and I admit they aren't tough enough on Cons.

At least we agree the media didn't do their job.