The Media's Liberal Bias

[sitarro]

Are you addressing me or making a general statement?

Actually I was responding to the lame ass site you used to try to prove Kathianne wrong. Did you bother to read the tripe that is thrown up on that fag site? They claim 4 billion dollars was spent by the government when even that dolt Clinton only complains about 70 million(inflated figure nodoubt). Like I said before, fags will believe anything and that site proves only that. Did you not realize that the "rainbow" site that you quoted is a homosexual propaganda site? They even tried to "out" Matt Drudge, what sick assholes, and this is yourproof of anything? Very weak Gump, stick to shrimping Bubba.

 

[jillian]

Actually I was responding to the lame ass site you used to try to prove Kathianne wrong. Did you bother to read the tripe that is thrown up on that fag site? They claim 4 billion dollars was spent by the government when even that dolt Clinton only complains about 70 million(inflated figure nodoubt). Like I said before, fags will believe anything and that site proves only that. Did you not realize that the "rainbow" site that you quoted is a homosexual propaganda site? They even tried to "out" Matt Drudge, what sick assholes, and this is yourproof of anything? Very weak Gump, stick to shrimping Bubba.

Hmmmmmmmm..... isn't it possible to disagree with what the site asserts (and provide alternatice figures, perhaps) without the raging homophobia? (which really has no affect one way or the other on accuracy, anyway).

 

[dilloduck]

Hmmmmmmmm..... isn't it possible to disagree with what the site asserts (and provide alternatice figures, perhaps) without the raging homophobia? (which really has no affect one way or the other on accuracy, anyway).

Do you deem that homophobia ? Looks more like anger than fear to me.

 

[sitarro]

Hmmmmmmmm..... isn't it possible to disagree with what the site asserts (and provide alternatice figures, perhaps) without the raging homophobia? (which really has no affect one way or the other on accuracy, anyway).

Homophobia? I have known, worked with, been best friends with and watched die many homosexuals over the years. I am not afraid of homosexuals, if anything I feel sorry for them.

I showed that the site overstated the Federal government's expenditures on the numerous cases against Bill and Hillary Clinton by 3,930,000,000 dollars(that is BILLION with a B). I even had another site quoting Bill on the 70 million dollar expenditure figure. The homosexual agenda has a lot to do with the lies they spew on this web site, they are saying that the prudish Federal government(read Republicans) spent 4 billion dollars investigating a blow job that the fun, playboy President recieved in the Oval office. That is nothing but bullshit.

Dillo is correct, I am angered by the lies and exaggerations put out by the radical homosexual jerks that are only concerned with how many idiots they can talk into having animal like sex with. The poor kids that they effect with the lies they spread are doomed to a horrible life of self disgust and probable suicide or deadly disease. Because of the homosexuals I have known, I speak from a place of knowledge rather than blind hatred. I don't hate these people but I am disgusted by their lifestyle just as I'm disgusted with crack addicts, thieves, pedophiles, masochists and users that take advantage of the weak. The propaganda they spread is having a serious impact on my country and it pisses me off. They are not interested in what they are doing to this country, they have one track minds and that is all they really care about. It is a sick, sad existence and I would rather not see any of my nieces or nephews sucked into it by these jerks and their lies.

 

[jillian]

Do you deem that homophobia ? Looks more like anger than fear to me.

Anger isn't a primary emotion. It's a secondary one. And the persistent referece to gays in derrogatory terms is definitely a sign of homophobia, IMO, of course.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I really try not to respond to people who commence a discussion by saying "what a joke". But I will say this: it seems your problem is that you don't like when the people with whom you disagree don't allow the language to be hijacked by those with the same agenda as you.

Language is very powerful and choice of words is a very effective manner in which to frame a debate. Part of good debating skills is picking the right words.

Of course words are powerful, thats what propaganda is all about. Its not that people I dont like hijack words, I am merely pointing out how the liberals change words instead of their values. Republicans, on the other hand, have changed the values of the party to more meet modern mainstream America.
Liberals change labels, conservatives change themselves for the better.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

There are plenty of conservative outlets. Most publishers are conservatives. Wash Times, NY Post, Fox, Drudge...yadda, yadda..to say conservative media is tied mainly to Sunday morning news shows is not only disingenuous, it is not true. I wish there was no such thing as a liberal or conservative slant. Just present the news without editorial thanks. I'm old enough to make up my own mind....

FOX and DRUDGE are publishers?
The number of papers, major or minor, that are liberal vastly outnumbers the conservative ones. Just for starters, the two largest papers in the country, NY times and LA times are mind boggleing liberal.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Anger isn't a primary emotion. It's a secondary one. And the persistent referece to gays in derrogatory terms is definitely a sign of homophobia, IMO, of course.

Fear is a secondary emotion? I disagree. Can you explain?

 

[Dr Grump]

FOX and DRUDGE are publishers?
The number of papers, major or minor, that are liberal vastly outnumbers the conservative ones. Just for starters, the two largest papers in the country, NY times and LA times are mind boggleing liberal.

Fox and Drudge are both published on the web. As for the rest of the list, if you care to publish a list of ALL newspapers and your take on their bias, then go ahead....

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Fox and Drudge are both published on the web. As for the rest of the list, if you care to publish a list of ALL newspapers and your take on their bias, then go ahead....

This actually is a question to stir a good debate. Is internet posting publishing or viewing? The internet is VIEWED just as a news program is, only thing is instead of the words being spoken, they are written. Is a deaf person "listening" to the news through subtitles watching a published version of ABC's sunday morning news on channel 7?

Anyone who doesnt see that the media is liberal slanted is delusional. Plain and simple. They belong in the bohemian grove club, the, "we didnt land on the moon and the flat earth society" gangs. Fact is over 80-85% of newspaper employees are registered Dems. And dont give me about how the owners are conservatives, the owners arent involved in day to day publishing of the contents. Anyone who resorts to such arguements is disengenuous not only to the person they are arguing with, but more importantly, themselves

 

[Dr Grump]

Fact is over 80-85% of newspaper employees are registered Dems.

I look forward to you backing this up...

And dont give me about how the owners are conservatives, the owners arent involved in day to day publishing of the contents.

Oh, dear. RATFLMAO..boy oh boy...read a couple of biographies on Rupert Murdoch that are available at your nearest book store, then get back to me..

Anyone who resorts to such arguements is disengenuous not only to the person they are arguing with, but more importantly, themselves

Sure.....

Anyone who doesnt see that the media is liberal slanted is delusional. Plain and simple.

Oh nice ad hominem too...

 

[jillian]

I look forward to you backing this up...



Oh, dear. RATFLMAO..boy oh boy...read a couple of biographies on Rupert Murdoch that are available at your nearest book store, then get back to me..



Sure.....



Oh nice ad hominem too...

Fact is that most major media in this country is owned by five supercorporations. Each of those has business before Bush's FCC which either gives or denies approval for purchase/sale of outlets.

Calling the media "liberal", when right wing talk radio has dominated debate for about two decades is just a way of not having to look at facts one doesn't like.

 

[sitarro]

Fact is that most major media in this country is owned by five supercorporations. Each of those has business before Bush's FCC which either gives or denies approval for purchase/sale of outlets.

Calling the media "liberal", when right wing talk radio has dominated debate for about two decades is just a way of not having to look at facts one doesn't like.

Really Jilian,

You claim to be smart but you just parrot the same old crap. You and I both know that when it comes to the network news or print media, it just doesn't matter what the political leanings of the owners are(they are business people first), it is the editorial writers(NEW YORK TIMES!!!!!, the network news readers(KATIE COURIC!!!!!!!!!), the whinny little tv talk shows(The View, Bill Maher, Tavis Smiley) or any writers for Playboy, Newsweek, Time, People, the Star or the New Yorker....are you going to really pretend that these people don't shape the opinions of the most gullible. They also tend to be rediculous easy on Dem-ocrat-wits while exaggerating, fabricating, misinterpreting or just down right lying about Republican guests to their faces.

You all keep parroting the same bullshit poll numbers, it is all about the public's lack of knowledge and interest in politics and the one liner lies repeated ad nasseum by every dimwit bar fly democrat that they interview. I really give a shit about some illegal asshole's opinion of my President....sure....yet many listen and believe. It's easy to do, you don't have to think, you just follow the biggest mouths you know that go absolutely postal if you mention any truth or reality about politics that surely disagrees with them. There is no discussion, it always ends up with the lib yelling and screaming an then walking off....it's easier to just play their infantile game and find out the score for some college basketball game and ignore what is really going on around you. By the way Jillian, President Bush isn't running again, his poll numbers, if even 25% accurate , mean nothing. Sorry, I know you have been geared up to vote against him.

"Right wing " talk shows dominate because conservatives are the type that wants to discuss politics, dems don't. That is why that rediculously amateurish attempt, "Air America", is dead and about to be burried. The few that listen to that garbage are either the hard core neolibs that just act as groupie nut cases or conservatives that forget why they dislike liberals so much and need a reminder.....kinda like DU.

 

[Dr Grump]

Really Jilian,

You claim to be smart but you just parrot the same old crap. You and I both know that when it comes to the network news or print media, it just doesn't matter what the political leanings of the owners are(they are business people first), it is the editorial writers(NEW YORK TIMES!!!!!, the network news readers(KATIE COURIC!!!!!!!!!), the whinny little tv talk shows(The View, Bill Maher, Tavis Smiley) or any writers for Playboy, Newsweek, Time, People, the Star or the New Yorker....are you going to really pretend that these people don't shape the opinions of the most gullible. They also tend to be rediculous easy on Dem-ocrat-wits while exaggerating, fabricating, misinterpreting or just down right lying about Republican guests to their faces.

You all keep parroting the same bullshit poll numbers, it is all about the public's lack of knowledge and interest in politics and the one liner lies repeated ad nasseum by every dimwit bar fly democrat that they interview. I really give a shit about some illegal asshole's opinion of my President....sure....yet many listen and believe. It's easy to do, you don't have to think, you just follow the biggest mouths you know that go absolutely postal if you mention any truth or reality about politics that surely disagrees with them. There is no discussion, it always ends up with the lib yelling and screaming an then walking off....it's easier to just play their infantile game and find out the score for some college basketball game and ignore what is really going on around you. By the way Jillian, President Bush isn't running again, his poll numbers, if even 25% accurate , mean nothing. Sorry, I know you have been geared up to vote against him.

"Right wing " talk shows dominate because conservatives are the type that wants to discuss politics, dems don't. That is why that rediculously amateurish attempt, "Air America", is dead and about to be burried. The few that listen to that garbage are either the hard core neolibs that just act as groupie nut cases or conservatives that forget why they dislike liberals so much and need a reminder.....kinda like DU.

RATFLMAO!! Sorry Sitarro, you crack me up. Ya know, over the past five years I've been a member of five messageboards and no matter how much the various factions disagree there has always been one truism - never pick on typos. Whether you be a loony leftie or rabid rightie, and everyone in between, picking on typos has been seen as a no-no. Not only is it pedantic, but it shows the mindset of those doing the picking - small minded and arrogant. Dunno about you, but to me messageboards are meant to be fun, not an English lesson. Some of us are multi-tasking, not good at spelling or just don't give a toss. My point? A few days ago I read a post by you chastising somebody (lightly I might add - nothing too nasty) for spelling competent wrong - twice no less!! Your point being that people should proof their posts. That being said, and reading the above, how do you spell "rediculous(ly)" - TWICE no less? Heh. BTW, I only bring it up because YOU made it an issue in another post. If you hadn't said jack, neither would I. Just pointing out the irony of it.....Oh, and I make a tonne of typos and make no apology for them.. :cof:

Back to the thread topic. Most gullible, who just won the past two presidential elections? There are some gullible poeple out there all right.

As for Bush's numbers, you may not care....but I bet Bush does and especially what it does for his legacy.

"Right wing " talk shows dominate because conservatives are the type that wants to discuss politics, dems don't.

LOL...mayhap you could tell the conservatives on these boards? As for wanting to "discuss", you mean like O'Reilly and Hannity? Yeah, they are real paragons of articulate debate and level-headed argument...

 

[Annie]

Fact is that most major media in this country is owned by five supercorporations. Each of those has business before Bush's FCC which either gives or denies approval for purchase/sale of outlets.

Calling the media "liberal", when right wing talk radio has dominated debate for about two decades is just a way of not having to look at facts one doesn't like.

I'll echo Sittaro, though being me, would have tried to put on some veneer of 'fairness', but I'll go with his take. The ownership/editorial policies have little to do with the running of a media outlet; print, radio, or television. Considering what is now happening at the Grey Lady, ownership/stockwise, I would not be shocked to see a major change in reporting and editorials in the near future, unless the minority +++stock really has a death wish for that paper. WaPo and Tribune Enterprises are in the same position. Liberalism in the form of journalism is sinking. They have blown it too many times, it being the truth. Even the left has a problem with Rathergate.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Fact is that most major media in this country is owned by five supercorporations. Each of those has business before Bush's FCC which either gives or denies approval for purchase/sale of outlets.

Calling the media "liberal", when right wing talk radio has dominated debate for about two decades is just a way of not having to look at facts one doesn't like.

Other than radio, liberals dominate. It would not be an effort at all to go all day or week without hearing talk radio, but who ever goes a day without reading a headline while walking into the supermarket, or see a blip of tv news while visiting a friend or even at your own house.

The main reason talk radio is conservative, is because it is the only media that is forced to hold its feet to the fire of the average american and sound reasoning. No other media has a direct involvement of its viewers, readers. Liberal ideas just dont hold up under scrutiny.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I look forward to you backing this up...



Oh, dear. RATFLMAO..boy oh boy...read a couple of biographies on Rupert Murdoch that are available at your nearest book store, then get back to me..

I see, I have to do your homework AND MINE, eh?
fact is, every time Ive been challenged on a statement like that, it has been proven. Someone will come up with the survey, just wait and see. So, Jillian said something about all the radio stations being owned by five corps? so that means 5 CEOs go around to the thousands of radio stations weekly making sure the editorial comments of the broadcasters is conservative? get real.

Sure.....



Oh nice ad hominem too...

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I look forward to you backing this up...



Oh, dear. RATFLMAO..boy oh boy...read a couple of biographies on Rupert Murdoch that are available at your nearest book store, then get back to me..



Sure.....



Oh nice ad hominem too...

A Measure of Media Bias





“The editors in Los Angeles killed the story. They told Witcover that it didn’t ‘come off’ and that it was an ‘opinion’ story. …The solution was simple, they told him. All he had to do was get other people to make the same points and draw the same conclusions and then write the article in their words.” (emphasis in original) Timothy Crouse, Boys on the Bus, 1973, p. 116.





Do the major media outlets in the U.S. have a liberal bias? Few questions evoke stronger opinions, and we cannot think of a more important question to which objective statistical techniques can lend their service. So far, the debate has largely been one of anecdotes (“How can CBS News be balanced when it calls Steve Forbes’ tax plan ‘wacky’?”) and untested theories (“if the news industry is a competitive market, then how can media outlets be systematically biased?”).



Few studies provide an objective measure of the slant of news, and none has provided a way to link such a measure to ideological measures of other political actors. That is, none of the existing measures can say, for example, whether the New York Times is more liberal than Tom Daschle or whether Fox News is more conservative than Bill Frist. We provide such a measure. Namely, we compute an ADA score for various news outlets, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, the Drudge Report, Fox News’ Special Report, and all three networks’ nightly news shows.



Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets, including the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than the center. These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample.



To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups.[1] We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same think tanks in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate. By comparing the citation patterns we can construct an ADA score for each media outlet.



As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, one liberal and one conservative. Suppose that the New York Times cited the liberal think tank twice as often as the conservative one. Our method asks: What is the estimated ADA score of a member of Congress who exhibits the same frequency (2:1) in his or her speeches? This is the score that our method would assign the New York Times.



A feature of our method is that it does not require us to make a subjective assessment of how liberal or conservative a think tank is. That is, for instance, we do we need to read policy reports of the think tank or analyze its position on various issues to determine its ideology. Instead, we simply observe the ADA scores of the members of Congress who cite the think tank. This feature is important, since an active controversy exists whether, e.g., the Brookings Institution or the RAND Corporation is moderate, left-wing, or right-wing.



Some Previous Studies of Media Bias



Survey research has shown that an almost overwhelming fraction of journalists are liberal. For instance, Elaine Povich (1996) reports that only seven percent of all Washington correspondents voted for George H.W. Bush in 1992, compared to 37 percent of the American public.[2] Lichter, Rothman and Lichter, (1986) and Weaver and Wilhoit (1996) report similar findings for earlier elections. More recently, the New York Times reported that only eight percent of Washington correspondents thought George W. Bush would be a better president than John Kerry.[3] This compares to 51% of all American voters. David Brooks notes that for every journalist who contributed to George W. Bush’s campaign, 93 contributed to Kerry’s

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

 

[Dr Grump]

I see, I have to do your homework AND MINE, eh?
fact is, every time Ive been challenged on a statement like that, it has been proven. Someone will come up with the survey, just wait and see. So, Jillian said something about all the radio stations being owned by five corps? so that means 5 CEOs go around to the thousands of radio stations weekly making sure the editorial comments of the broadcasters is conservative? get real.

LOL re homework...no, no, no...and NO re the five CEOs. I do know, having read two of Murdoch's biographies, he demands his editors on his newspapers AND the producers in the newsroom are conservative-friendly, which is borne out by the editorial slant of the newspapers he owns and Fox News. I do have an issue with your 85% figure. I'd say it's closer to about a 60-40 split, with the right-wing gaining ground....

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Really Jilian,

You claim to be smart but you just parrot the same old crap. You and I both know that when it comes to the network news or print media, it just doesn't matter what the political leanings of the owners are(they are business people first), it is the editorial writers(NEW YORK TIMES!!!!!, the network news readers(KATIE COURIC!!!!!!!!!), the whinny little tv talk shows(The View, Bill Maher, Tavis Smiley) or any writers for Playboy, Newsweek, Time, People, the Star or the New Yorker....are you going to really pretend that these people don't shape the opinions of the most gullible. They also tend to be rediculous easy on Dem-ocrat-wits while exaggerating, fabricating, misinterpreting or just down right lying about Republican guests to their faces.

You all keep parroting the same bullshit poll numbers, it is all about the public's lack of knowledge and interest in politics and the one liner lies repeated ad nasseum by every dimwit bar fly democrat that they interview. I really give a shit about some illegal asshole's opinion of my President....sure....yet many listen and believe. It's easy to do, you don't have to think, you just follow the biggest mouths you know that go absolutely postal if you mention any truth or reality about politics that surely disagrees with them. There is no discussion, it always ends up with the lib yelling and screaming an then walking off....it's easier to just play their infantile game and find out the score for some college basketball game and ignore what is really going on around you. By the way Jillian, President Bush isn't running again, his poll numbers, if even 25% accurate , mean nothing. Sorry, I know you have been geared up to vote against him.

"Right wing " talk shows dominate because conservatives are the type that wants to discuss politics, dems don't. That is why that rediculously amateurish attempt, "Air America", is dead and about to be burried. The few that listen to that garbage are either the hard core neolibs that just act as groupie nut cases or conservatives that forget why they dislike liberals so much and need a reminder.....kinda like DU.

Come on, you really are a dumbass. I agree every media outlet is biased. CNN is liberal, but Fox more than balances it out. You have lumped liberals with democrats. This simply isn't true. The Presidents numbers mean alot. If his numbers don't come up, he can't be an effective on the stump in the mid-terms. Not all liberals are stupid assholes, like you make them out to be. All Democrats aren't liberals. Thus far Jillian has made valid arguments and you don't seem to respond to them. You simply an entire paragraph calling him a "liberal" and that is your rebuttal. This tactic is only used by extremists, on both side of the fence. Hell, you'll probably call me a liberal now that I've written this. Hell, call away. If liberal means being the opposite of you, then so be it.