mattskramer
Senior Member
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 Id 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 Sickobut 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 dont 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/
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 Sickobut 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 dont 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/
