The Intrinsically Biased Liberal Mass Media Shows Itself for What It Is

[SPIKESMYGOD]

1) Remember when Senator Trent Lott caused a fire storm over his lauding of Strom Thurmond? Remember the moral indignation of liberals of all colors- especially the Congressional Black Caucus- when Lott praised Thurmond, even saying that America would have been better off if Ol' Strom would have been elected President?

Well, recently Connecticut Senator, Christopher Dodd made very similar comments about West Virginia Senator, Robert Byrd. He said that Robert Byrd would have been right on our founding, the writing of the Constitution, the great conflict of the Civil War, and many other periods in our nation's history. Matter of fact, Dodd said that he could not think of a "single moment in this nation's 220-plus year history when he[Byrd] would NOT have been a valuable asset."

Facts:
Bobby Byrd once was a proud member of the KKK.
Byrd was a segregationist.
Byrd voted against the 1964 civil rights bill.
As late as a couple of years ago, Byrd, whatever the context, was STILL using the word "Ni__er."

This doesn't even cover the fact that Byrd is a demagogue who has turned his state into a wasteland of pork & socialism.

What makes these two incidents similar? The two senators in question praised men who have been NOTHING but divisive to this country & supported hate & fear over progress.

The difference?
It seems that the liberal mass media, the Congressional Black Caucus, and liberals, en masse, seem to be giving Dodd a free pass.

Dodd, himself, called for Lott to step down from his position of power on the heels of his comments about Thurmond. Yet, somehow I doubt that he, Dodd, will either accept responsibility for his comments or resign from his position of power from any committees on which he serves.

2) In the most recent tumult at the Times, a New York Times entertainment reviewer was shocked when he found his review of a Broadway show had been altered. Describing a terrible show, which played up how wonderful it is to embrace life, his term "pro-life" had been changed to "anti-choice" by a low-level editor. Not only did it erroneously alter the intent of his usage of the term, it showed the subconscious liberal agenda & the worshipping of political correctness at the Times.

Now, if these two incidents would have transpired AND been completely explored & exposed by the LMM, they STILL would have been disturbing. However, the fact that they took place and were IGNORED by the liberal mass media nearly makes their "cover-up" an intellectual & journalistic crime.


Yeah, I guess it's only going to get worse when they REALLY try to get Kerry elected....though they will fail and fail MISERABLY!

 

[Hobbit]

The media is so liberal, it makes me sick. During Gavin Newsom's reign of the People's Republic of San Francisco, CNN, NBC, ABC, etc. kept showing pictures of happy, (supposedly) married people and quoting people who compared it to Rosa Parks and calling it a "great victory for civil rights." Maybe 1/10 of the article would bring attention to the fact that a recently enacted law, passed by popular vote, prohibited gay marriage in California.

When the ACLU was ruled against when trying to prevent Boy Scouts from leasing public land, they then went behind the judge's back and sued L.A. The city council settled for millions. The only place I heard this story was on the O'Reilly factor.

On a scale of 1-10, 1 being most conservative and 10 being most liberal, here's how I'd rate the news sources I get.

CNN - 7
NBC, ABC, CBS - 8
NPR - 9.5
New York Times - 10
Fox News - 5 (mostly impartial)
Bill O'Reilly (radio and tv) - 4
Glenn Beck - 3
Rush Limbaugh - 1
Wall Street Journal - 3.5
Local News (NW Arkansas) - 5
U of A school newspaper - 7
Arkansas Democrat Gazette - 9

The kind of spin I get on these things is unbelievable. I mean, I have to listen to Rush Limbaugh every day just to counteract the spin I get from all the liberal bias in mass media, and he's a wacko.

 

[SPIKESMYGOD]

Hobbit-

Very good points, but you went astray on a couple of points:

1) NPR- which I love- is not NEARLY as pinko commie lib as the big 3 networks.

2) Rush is NOT a wacko! He is the hammer to the head of liberalism, the truth in the face of lies, & the reason we even HAVE a fu*king voice!!!!!!!!!

 

[William Joyce]

Neither Trent Lott nor Robert Byrd would today stand up for the white race. That makes them both traitors in my book.

 

[SPIKESMYGOD]

(ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!)

I'm sorry, did anybody ELSE hear or see the short bus go by?

 

[krisy]

Uh-Trent Lott's ordeal was ridiculous! I still can't believe it-I mean,he didn't even do anything! It was obvious that he was humoring an old man. C'mon,please. You have to see how bad it was what they did to this man! It was a convenient excise to pick on him. Of course they aren't picking on the Democrat-they don't do anything wrong. They would never ever be rascist.

I think Fox news is the best media outlet to get fair news. I've seen a lot of them point out a lot of good valid points,and good things Bush has done.

 

[William Joyce]

(ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!)

I'm sorry, did anybody ELSE hear or see the short bus go by?

Yes. I was standing on the corner, and I tried waving to you, but you were wearing your colorblind conservative helmet and drooling, so I guess you didn't see me wave.

 

[acludem]

There is NO liberal media bias. The media reports whatever will sell newspapers or get you to watch TV. This a myth that has been drilled into your heads by people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Then you all had a conniption fit when Bernie "disgruntled employee" Goldberg's fiction book came out. If you want to see spin in the news, watch Fox News Channel, read the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal, and listen to Limbaugh and Hannity. Papers like the New York Times at least try to be objective.

Want more proof, check out this link:http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/campaign2000/lastlap/default.asp

This shows that during the 2000 election campaign George Bush got FAVORABLE coverage from the so-called "Liberal media" This is a study from an independent group working at the highly respected Columbia School of Journalism.

The media reported the Lott story because it sold papers and got people to watch TV. The Dodd comments were far less inflammatory (I mean come on, compare saying that Byrd was an asset however long, to saying we would've been better off with a segregationist president who frequently used the "N word" in public speeches). Robert Byrd has apologized for his involvement in the KKK and for his vote on the Civil Rights bill. Strom Thurmond (may he rest in peace) never did either of these.

acludem

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by acludem
There is NO liberal media bias.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps the reason you don't hear any bias is that what the mainstream media are saying sounds perfectly reasonable to you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
The media reports whatever will sell newspapers or get you to watch TV.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You've made that argument before. "Negativity sells", I believe you said. That's a cop-out. "Selective negativity" is more like it. What could be more contentious, and therefore more controversial, than the hypocrisy surrounding this Robert Byrd thing? That would keep people glued to their TV sets around the clock. Why aren't we seeing it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
This a myth that has been drilled into your heads by people like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There it is again-the beating heart of liberalism: arrogance. We're all a bunch of drooling yokels who'll gobble up whatever is put before us by the vast right-wing conspiracy. That's why it's up to liberals, as our betters, to set us right.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
If you want to see spin in the news, watch Fox News Channel,.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That the overwhelming majority of executives and broadcast journalists at ABC,CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, etc., etc., etc., are registered Democrats cannot be questioned. Why is the fact that the reverse may be true at one network cause for such weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Papers like the New York Times at least try to be objective.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LOL! That's a great one! Have you heard this one? "These two Popes walk into a bar, see.....".
QUOTE]

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
Want more proof, check out this link:http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/campaign2000/lastlap/default.asp

That's not proof, that's one instance! Would you see it as proof if I gave you another 10 links to show that there IS a liberal media bias?

Papers like the New York Times at least try to be objective.

Now I know you're clueless!

 

[SPIKESMYGOD]

Go burn a cross, fu*k a Hitler look-alike, or work on the El Camino sitting on blocks in your yard. Either way, neither you NOR extreme liberals will EVER take OUR country away from us. So, you wanna keep this tit for tat going? What's next? Paper, rock, scissors?

ACLU-

For the love of Joss! The New York Times is OBJECTIVE?

Hey, I've got this bridge in Brooklyn....well, you get my point. I love how The NY Times' correction section is usually as big as the rest of the paper. LOL And they usually only correct the lies which get brought to light by outlets like FOX.

See, FOX makes no bones about having an agenda. Matter of fact, I have heard some at FOX, like Brit Hume & Neil Cavuto, confirm that they are a conservative network. What we Republicans can't stand is that the three majors & papers like The New York Times, Washington Post, & The Los Angeles Times try to brainwash the public into believing that THEY are not LIBERAL outlets. This comes from the fact that they, in their demented little world, actually believe that THEY are mainstream and that FOX & Rush are fringe wackos.

What the liberals REALLY hate about FOX is that they have both changed the national conversation AND that they, FOX, have exposed the three majors for what they really are: Mouthpieces for the Far Left.

One question......

If the three majors are NOT liberal advocates, then why did ALL three INCORRECTLY call Florida for Gore, while FOX CORRECTLY called Florida for Bush?

Ah, but it gets better than just that. FOX was ridiculed by the LMM for CORRECTLY calling Florida for Bush at TWO IN THE MORNING. The LMM said that FOX was trying to throw the election, even though the Florida polls had been closed for hours & hours when FOX CORRECTLY called the state for Bush. Conversely, the three majors INCORRECTLY called Florida for Gore, but, unlike FOX, they called it with nearly an HOUR left to vote in Florida.

Now, you might call that gross incompetence, but I call it election rigging.

The question is no longer whether or not the mass media is liberal or not- we know they are- but to what lengths will they go to defeat Bush and attack FOX.

 

[acludem]

The majority of executives at a goodly majority of American newspapers are conservative and Republican. As for your arguments about TV, how many hours were spent covering Gary Condit vs. hours spent covering Newt Gingrich's lies to a committee of Congress? How many hours were devoted to repeating LIES about the funeral of Sen. Paul Wellstone? How many hours were devoted to covering Monica Lewinsky? IF these people are engaging in, as you accuse them, a liberal conspiracy to hide the truth, why would they spend all this time on stories like this. The Wellstone thing is the worst example. The right wing media lead by Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity started making wild accusations with a couple of soundbites of ONE speech to make the Wellstone funeral out to be some kind of Democratic hatchet job. It wasn't. View the whole tape sometime, the only speaker to even mention the campaign was the guy Hannity and O'Reilly kept showing. Then CNN and MSNBC picked up the story and ran with it, spreading more falsehoods. The right has FAR more control over the media than the left. The complaints about the "liberal media" are a smokescreen. And BTW, if every vote had been counted in Florida, Gore would've won. Either way, no one should have called it when they did. And the person who made the decision at Fox to call it for Bush? A Bush relative of course.

acludem

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by acludem
The majority of executives at a goodly majority of American newspapers are conservative and Republican.

I had a great response but the server died on me.

Anyway, the executives don't write and report the news - the journalists do, and they tend to lean left.
Regardless, there are some media outlets that lean right. There are others that lean left. The left leaners are overwhelmingly the ones where the average American goes for their news. The big difference, though, is that the news outlets that lean right (WSJ or WorldNetDaily, for example) tell you that they lean right. Left-leaning media like CNN or the NYT try to pass off their liberal spin as objective reporting.

I try to get my news from multiple sources. For example, I'll watch Fox usually, but then I'll switch over to CNN or CNBC. Not only do I get the different spins, but I get different details, and sometimes different stories that not all the networks are covering.

And BTW, if every vote had been counted in Florida, Gore would've won. Either way, no one should have called it when they did. And the person who made the decision at Fox to call it for Bush? A Bush relative of course.

acludem [/B]

First, get over the damn election already.
Second, why didn't your boy Gore ask for a statewide recount, instead of his strategy of targeted recounts? And if he wanted to count all the votes (which they all were, but that's besides the point, right?) why did he supress the overseas military vote?

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
why did he supress the overseas military vote?

I know why...cuz Gore can suck a big fat cock. That's why...

 

[Hobbit]

Originally posted by acludem
The majority of executives at a goodly majority of American newspapers are conservative and Republican. As for your arguments about TV, how many hours were spent covering Gary Condit vs. hours spent covering Newt Gingrich's lies to a committee of Congress? How many hours were devoted to repeating LIES about the funeral of Sen. Paul Wellstone? How many hours were devoted to covering Monica Lewinsky? IF these people are engaging in, as you accuse them, a liberal conspiracy to hide the truth, why would they spend all this time on stories like this. The Wellstone thing is the worst example. The right wing media lead by Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity started making wild accusations with a couple of soundbites of ONE speech to make the Wellstone funeral out to be some kind of Democratic hatchet job. It wasn't. View the whole tape sometime, the only speaker to even mention the campaign was the guy Hannity and O'Reilly kept showing. Then CNN and MSNBC picked up the story and ran with it, spreading more falsehoods. The right has FAR more control over the media than the left. The complaints about the "liberal media" are a smokescreen. And BTW, if every vote had been counted in Florida, Gore would've won. Either way, no one should have called it when they did. And the person who made the decision at Fox to call it for Bush? A Bush relative of course.

acludem

Ok, next person I hear claiming the election was rigged gets slapped. Not only were all the votes counted, they were all counted again and again and again and again.

Oh, and as for the media not being liberal, try this on for size.

When Gavin Newsom basically declared San Fran's independence from the state of California and started marrying gay couples, here's what the big outlets had to say.

NYT - "This is a huge victory for civil rights."
CNN - "Somebody is finally standing up for the rights of same-sex couples."
CBS, NBC, ABC - "...a huge victory for progress."
Fox News - "He may be standing for his principles, but he's sworn to uphold the law, which he is now defying. He may want to teach through civil disobediance, but he has to pay the consequences."
Rush Limbaugh - "This guy's defying a recently passed law. Who does he think he is?"

When the ACLU started demanding action against the Boy Scouts for not allowing homosexuals, here's what the major news outlets said.

NYT - "The ACLU is standing up against the Boy Scouts in favor of gay rights."
CNN - "The Boy Scouts are still defying the ACLU by disallowing openly gay members."
Didn't see the story on CBS, NBC, or ABC
Fox News - "Of course the Boy Scouts can't have openly gay members, because you can't have sexual tension in the middle of the woods. It's the same reason they don't allow girls."
Rush Limbaugh - "These people are trying to push everyone around and deny them their personal freedoms."

When the ACLU lost that case, but then turned around and sued L.A. for leasing land to the Boy Scouts and got a $1 million settlement from the city council, despite having been ruled against, here's what the major outlets had to say.

NYT, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC - did not report it
Fox News - "The ACLU is trying to push it's own twisted agenda, despite being ruled against by the courts, and the other outlets are failing to report it. We had to find a local paper in L.A. just to get the story."
Rush Limbaugh - "It's just like these people to cover up the wrongdoings of their own. It's just sick."

When Condi Rice failed to testify before the 9-11 commission over and over again, here's what they had to say.

NYT - "Condoleeza Rice again refuses to testify before the 9-11 commission, despite increasing pressure. This has led many Democrats and members of the commission to believe that the Bush administration may be hiding something."
CNN - "Condoleeza Rice again turned down an opportunity to testify before the 9-11 commission, leading many people to ask, 'Bush, just what are you hiding.'"
ABC, CBS, NBC - "Increasing pressure by Democrats has still failed to get National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice to testify before the 9-11 commission, leading many people to think that the Bush administration has something to hide."
Fox News - "Democrats and 9-11 commission members tried once again to pressure Condoleeza Rice into testifying before the 9-11 commission, but she refused, citing the fact that no other National Security Advisor has ever testified before Congress and that some information they may ask her about is classified and not ready to be made public knowledge."
Rush Limbaugh - "The people just won't quit, will they? Once again, they try to get Condi Rice to testify, and when she refuses, they're like, 'Oh, you must have something to hide.' Give me a break. No National Security Advisor has EVER testified before Congress, since it's a matter of national security. These people are just trying to put her under the spotlight so they can pressure her into saying something they can use against Bush."

See, in every one of these stories, the liberal side was the only side shown by the major news outlets. Oh, and here's another thing you may not have heard about the liberal media. A high up reporter/editor of the New York Times, one of the anchors on "60 Minutes" (can't remember which one), and a couple of anchors from ABC, NBC, and CNN got together with John Kerry and coached him on how to give speak correctly when campaigning and several other of the finer points of how to get yourself elected president. Let me make this simple for those who missed it. Several major media moguls got together with John Kerry to coach him on how to get elected, and they did not extend the same coutesy to George W. Bush. They...are...biased.

I'll close up with this. Listen to 'All Things Considered' carefully, then tell me NPR isn't that liberal. Rush Limbaugh is a wacko...a smart, insightful, and usually correct wacko, but a wacko. I mean, what else can you call somebody who is constantly saying, "I know these people better than I know every inch of my naked body."

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by dmp
I know why...cuz Gore can suck a big fat cock. That's why...

DMP for president!!!

 

[SPIKESMYGOD]

First, when the LIBERAL, LIBERAL, LIBERAL media covered the Monica scandal, they were not indicting Clinton, they were showing what a witch-hunt this was by evil Republicans.

Florida?

Even after several recounts, showing Bush as the winner, the media, per usual, were allowed to recount all the ballots and, to their horror, they could only come to one conclusion: BUSH WON FLORIDA! Of course, they either didn't report it or they buried it on page 17 of the Style section.

You pinko commie libs actually call Benard Goldberg a "disgruntled former employee?" Believe it or not, I was just saying to someone, two days ago, that YOU libs, ON THIS BOARD, were going to try to prop up Dick Clarke by trying to say this. Unfortunately, as always, you guys are dead WRONG!

Bernard was a liberal and, hitherto, in good standing at CBS. However, when The Wall Street Journal asked him to write about whether or not there was a liberal bias in the media, he agreed and, even to the shock of the WSJ, wrote that there very well MIGHt be. Well, after that, CBS- mostly from threats made by The Dan- isolated him, blackballed him, & blacklisted him. Then, they dried up nearly all reports by him and gave him an "extended paid vacation."
btw- If you can TRULY punch any holes in his book, go for it.

Dick, on the other hand, was a high-ranking member of an administration which saw fit to demote him to a lesser position. Once Dr. Rice demoted both him AND his ego and was "shown the door," THEN, he wrote his book, which TOTALLY reversed EVERY account of the Clinton years made by him before the book's release, including his interview with Richard Miniter for "Losing bin Laden." In addition to his anger at Condy demoting him, he obviously had an axe to grind because he opposed liberating Iraq.

See, two TOTALLY different sitches. One guy, Goldberg, was blindsided, the other guy, Clarke, was out for revenge. I wonder which one was "disgruntled."

We report, you decide!


btw- Chris Matthews must REALLY be hitting the crack.

See, unlike liberals, we Republicans do not just tune in for our daily re-brainwashing. I, for one, tape FOX while flipping through the Pinko channels to check out the blatant liberal bias.

With FOX, it always seems that, in addition to giving their take on a story or issue, they are ALSO quoting & refuting the take on the same issue or story by the Liberal Mass Media. Matter of fact, I nearly guessed, quote for quote, sound bite for sound bite, edit for edit......just how the LMM- CBS, in this case- would cover Condy's testimony.

Back to poor, demented Chris:

I always thought that Chris Matthews ATTEMPTED to TRY to balance his liberal sheepness with giving the news, but he, of late, has gone off the deep end. Tonight, in addition to the roundtable of ALL liberal journalists, he interviewed some widows of 9/11. No doubt these women were part of the liberal faction which applauds during the hearings & threw a hissy fit over Bush using a two second clip of 9/11, but had NO problem with Clarke & the Dems CONSTANTLY using 9/11 for their own gain, whether political or economical. In truth, these women are Bush haters & Clinton/Kerry supporters. So, in my view THEY are the ones who supported the corruption & inaction of the Clinton administration- and would love to see a Kerry administration carry out the same policies- thus THEY killed their loved ones and would love to kill more innocent people.

After watching Condy's testimony vs. how the LMM covered it, I could only compare it to one analogy: Your favorite team wins a championship, yet all the sports channels report that the OTHER team came from behind & won in stunning fashion, regardless that you watched the game with your own eyes & know the truth.

Yes, the LMM is THAT BAD!


Look, I like Art Bell as much as the next guy, but if any of you liberals TRULY believe that the LMM is NOT liberal, then I, also, am sure that you believe that the Mothership is coming back for you.

For your sake, I hope it comes on November 1st, thus preventing a LOT of suicides.

 

[clumzgirl]

Are the 3 networks liberal? Yes.

Is FOX conservative? Kind of.

Is there any such thing as non-biased news? Not as long as humans are reporting it.

Take it all in and decide for yourself instead of immersing yourself in just one arena and taking it as Gospel. (Oh sorry, for all you PC liberal types, take it as the Koran.)

 

[acludem]

"Is FOX conservative? Kind of. " - clumzgrl

Huh? Fox is kind of conservative? That's like saying Donald Trump is kind of rich, or Ann Coulter is kind of stupid.

Fox is the only truly biased news source on television.

acludem

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by acludem
Huh? Fox is kind of conservative? That's like saying Donald Trump is kind of rich, or Ann Coulter is kind of stupid.

Or that the New York Times is objective.