Media Bias

[red states rule]

Apparently, people are incapable of thinking for themselves. They rely on liberally biased media for their information – except for RSR who has risen above the sheep and found out that he can only trust select programs and web sites for honest reporting while basically ignoring all others. Don’t you understand? We don’t consider alternative points of view and think about things from different perspectives. RSR, in his ability to provide us the complete truth from such unbiased sites as Newsbusters, can give us the accurate information that we need. LOL.

The bias of the liberal media is there for all to see - now former members of it club are speaking out


Here is the news (as we want to report it)
Last Updated: 1:14am BST 15/07/2007Page 1 of 3

This week the BBC was forced to apologise to the Queen for falsely claiming that she stormed out of a photo shoot. We shouldn't be surprised, says former producer Antony Jay. In this exclusive extract from a brilliant new CPS pamphlet, he argues that the anti-establishment views at the heart of the corporation have always dictated its mind set

think I am beginning to see the answer to a question that has puzzled me for the past 40 years. The question is simple - much simpler than the answer: what is behind the opinions and attitudes of what are called the chattering classes? They are that minority characterised (or caricatured) by sandals and macrobiotic diets, but in a less extreme form found in the Guardian, Channel 4, the Church of England, academia, showbusiness and BBC News and Current Affairs, who constitute our metropolitan liberal media consensus - though the word “liberal” would have Adam Smith rotating at maximum velocity in his grave. Let's call it "media liberalism".

It is of particular interest to me because for nine years (1955-1964) I was part of this media liberal consensus. For six of those nine years I was working on Tonight, a nightly BBC current affairs television programme. My stint coincided almost exactly with Macmillan's premiership, and I do not think my ex-colleagues would quibble if I said we were not exactly diehard supporters. But we were not just anti-Macmillan; we were anti-industry, anti-capitalism, anti-advertising, anti-selling, anti-profit, anti-patriotism, anti-monarchy, anti-Empire, anti-police, anti-armed forces, anti-bomb, anti-authority. Almost anything that made the world a freer, safer and more prosperous place, you name it, we were anti it.

It was (and is) essentially, though not exclusively, a graduate phenomenon. From time to time it finds an issue that strikes a chord with the broad mass of the nation, but in most respects it is wildly unrepresentative of national opinion. When the Queen Mother died the media liberal press dismissed it as an event of no particular importance, and were mortified to see the vast crowds lining the route for her funeral, and the great flood of national emotion that it released.

for the complete article

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/14/nbeeb314.xml&page=1

 

[red states rule]

Lmao...none of you get it do you?

39% of people think its biased in favor of liberals? That is a MINORITY. Hardly the overwhelming majority you folks are claiming it to be.

The NY Times responded to the poll

 

[mattskramer]

The NY Times responded to the poll

I did a search through some New Your Times magazines and e-zines. I don’t see any such reply. Do you happen to have the Month in which the New York Times printed the reply so that I can narrow my search?

 

[red states rule]

Apparently, people are incapable of thinking for themselves. They rely on liberally biased media for their information – except for RSR who has risen above the sheep and found out that he can only trust select programs and web sites for honest reporting while basically ignoring all others. Don’t you understand? We don’t consider alternative points of view and think about things from different perspectives. RSR, in his ability to provide us the complete truth from such unbiased sites as Newsbusters, can give us the accurate information that we need. LOL.

Unbiased to you is anything that goes along with the predetermined view of the liberal media

 

[red states rule]

RSR has the annoying habit of slipping in something he found from Newsbusters that has close to nothing to do with the subject of the thread. I thought that I’d start a thread on the subject of media bias with a brief paragraph followed by examples of others sites that expose media bias.

You can find mida bias on all sides. You will usually find what you are looking for. It depends on where you stand. If you stand to the right, then you are going to find more liberal bias than if you stand in the middle.

Newsbusters, Newsbusters, Newsbusters – a website that, by its very subtitle, is biased. It is “exposing and combating liberal media bias”. In other words, it looks all around and finds something that seems to be a bit liberal, and criticizes it. It finds what it looks for. Other sites find what they look for too, so why rely strictly on Newsbusters. Consider the following:

FAIR http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3135

Here is an interesting story from that web site.

Filmmaker Michael Moore appeared on CNN's Situation Room on July 9 to talk about his new film Sicko—but ended up having an animated discussion with host Wolf Blitzer about a CNN "fact check" of the film that made several embarrassing errors.

The piece--dubbed a "Reality Check" claimed that Moore "fudged the facts" when critiquing the U.S. health care system. Gupta starts by acknowledging that the U.S. healthcare system placed 37th in the World Health Organization's rankings. The fact that Moore contrasts this with the Cuban system led Gupta to "catch" him: "But hold on. That WHO list puts Cuba's healthcare system even lower than the United States, coming in at number 39."

The fact that the U.S.'s healthcare system does about as well as a Third World island that's been under economic sanctions for the past five decades isn't much of a catch to begin with. But Cuba's WHO ranking actually appears in Moore's film. (As Moore's website pointed out, when CNN aired the relevant clip from his film, a CNN logo covered up Cuba on the list.)

Center for Meida and Democracy http://www.prwatch.org/

Here is some news that I doubt that you hare heard about. It comes from the abouve web site.

In testimony before Congress, former U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona accused the Bush administration of muzzling him on public health issues. According to the Washington Post this makes him "the most prominent voice among several current and former federal science officials who have complained of political interference. Carmona, a Bush nominee told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that political appointees in the administration routinely scrubbed his speeches for politically sensitive content and blocked him from speaking out on public health matters such as stem cell research, abstinence-only sex education and the emergency contraceptive Plan B. 'Anything that doesn't fit into the political appointees' ideological, theological or political agenda is often ignored, marginalized or simply buried,' he said. 'The problem with this approach is that in public health, as in a democracy, there is nothing worse than ignoring science or marginalizing the voice of science for reasons driven by changing political winds.'"

Reporting Wars http://www.reportingwars.com/ is an interesting web site. You get two different perspectives of evens side by side.

Then there is Media Matters http://mediamatters.org/items/200707120006?f=h_top

Yes. it is a show that is supported by Sorros but it still presents bias. Here is an interesting piece.

On the July 8 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Weekly Standard editor and Fox News contributor William Kristol falsely claimed that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "hasn't passed any legislation" and added that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) "hasn't either." In fact, Clinton and Obama have both been instrumental in the passage of legislation during the time they have served in the Senate, including legislation on which they were the lead sponsors.

There are many more examples but I don’t have time to post more. I could write a book but it is less of an interest for me than it is for RSR. Oh. There is a book worth reading if you are interested in the topic of media bias.

What Liberal Media Bias http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/

AFL-CIO: Keith Olbermann WIll Moderate Upcoming Democratic Presidential Debate
By Lynn Davidson | July 18, 2007 - 10:50 ET

Apparently, the grandstanding by Edward R. Murrow-wannabe Keith Olbermann during his performance as co-moderator of the May Republican debate won the support of the AFL-CIO. On its blog, the union announced the big news that Olbermann will also moderate the August 7 Democratic debate, which the powerful union is sponsoring.

It looks like the man who once stated that “the leading terrorist group in this country right now is the Republican Party,” will have the responsibility of questioning the Democratic candidates' positions and challenging their statements.

July 17, the AFL-CIO Now blog promoted Olbermann's new moderator gig, and since the site didn't mention Matthews' name or anyone else's, it looks as if Olbermann will fly solo (via Inside Cable News, emphasis mine throughout):



Keith Olbermann, whose biting, pull-no-punches commentaries on MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” have been known to spike the blood pressure of their targets—ask Fox News’ belligerent right-winger Bill O’Reilly—will moderate the AFL-CIO Presidential Candidates Forum in Chicago on Aug. 7. The forum, with the seven leading Democratic candidates, will be broadcast live from 6 p.m.-7:30 p.m. CDT (7 p.m.-8:30 p.m. EDT) on MSNBC and XM Satellite Radio.




Of course, O'Reilly is labeled a “right-winger,” while Olbermann is not given an ideologically left-leaning label. Granted, it is the AFL-CIO, and the union is promoting a certain world view in this post.

Considering Olbermann's bizarre partisan performance in the Republican debate and his weeknightly one-note political flea circus on MSNBC, is it possible for a man who frequently calls Republicans some form of Nazi or fascist and equates them to terrorists to treat the Dems with the same skepticism and question their talking points with the same vigor that he showed in the GOP debate?

AFL-CIO President John Sweeney praised Olbermann, saying, “Keith’s wit and political savvy will ensure a lively and substantive discussion about the issues working families care about most.” I guess Republicans don't have “working families.” Note that Sweeney didn't include “non-partisan” in the "Countdown" host's description. He must have caught Olbermann's act before.

http://newsbusters.org/node/14183


My, now there is an objective mod for the Dem bebate