When will the GOP recognize the MSM is the enemy and the MSM favors Democrats?

[mamooth]

Any Democrat understands that they're running against both the media and the Republicans. It's how it's always been.

And any intelligent person isn't fooled by the Republican attempts to work the refs here. The Republican plan -- which has been very successful -- is to scream "LIBERAL MEDIA!" at any media source that fails to report on Republicans in glowing terms, which makes the media terrified of saying anything bad about Republicans. This thread is a good example of that strategy.

 

[occupied]

The right wing view of the world rarely stands up to intense scrutiny. Journalists are paid to dig into a story and all too often the additional information they uncover makes any initial knee-jerk reaction incorrect. Conservatives tend to stick to the opinion they formed of a story in the first few seconds even after a more complete and contradictory picture emerges. There's your liberal bias, it's not the media, it's conservatives being unable to alter their opinion over the life of a story.

more laughable stupidity and projection>

let's see who's wordview and facts dont hold up to scrutiny shall we?
or are y ou too much of a coward???
i'll even let you pick the first topic

The birther idiots are a classic case of clinging to the knee-jerk reaction long after the facts come to light. If you are one of these I have nothing but ridicule and abuse to offer you.

 

[bedowin62]

The right wing view of the world rarely stands up to intense scrutiny. Journalists are paid to dig into a story and all too often the additional information they uncover makes any initial knee-jerk reaction incorrect. Conservatives tend to stick to the opinion they formed of a story in the first few seconds even after a more complete and contradictory picture emerges. There's your liberal bias, it's not the media, it's conservatives being unable to alter their opinion over the life of a story.

more laughable stupidity and projection>

let's see who's wordview and facts dont hold up to scrutiny shall we?
or are y ou too much of a coward???
i'll even let you pick the first topic

The birther idiots are a classic case of clinging to the knee-jerk reaction long after the facts come to light. If you are one of these I have nothing but ridicule and abuse to offer you.

YAWN

you're one of the morons that need to keep the birther thing alive

personally i beleive the guy is 100% American-born, half Irish Kansas trailer trash.

does that make you feel better???

 

[bedowin62]

i bet you believe Bush "lied to go to war" dont you leftard???

be honest.
was that ever proved????

idiots and hypocrites

 

[bedowin62]

Any Democrat understands that they're running against both the media and the Republicans. It's how it's always been.

And any intelligent person isn't fooled by the Republican attempts to work the refs here. The Republican plan -- which has been very successful -- is to scream "LIBERAL MEDIA!" at any media source that fails to report on Republicans in glowing terms, which makes the media terrified of saying anything bad about Republicans. This thread is a good example of that strategy.

i never get tired of watching self-deluding idiots mind-phuk themselves with self-decpetions

the media is liberal with the exception of Fox. The examples are endless

 

[occupied]

The right wing view of the world rarely stands up to intense scrutiny. Journalists are paid to dig into a story and all too often the additional information they uncover makes any initial knee-jerk reaction incorrect. Conservatives tend to stick to the opinion they formed of a story in the first few seconds even after a more complete and contradictory picture emerges. There's your liberal bias, it's not the media, it's conservatives being unable to alter their opinion over the life of a story.

more laughable stupidity and projection>

let's see who's wordview and facts dont hold up to scrutiny shall we?
or are y ou too much of a coward???
i'll even let you pick the first topic

The birther idiots are a classic case of clinging to the knee-jerk reaction long after the facts come to light. If you are one of these I have nothing but ridicule and abuse to offer you.

YAWN

you're one of the morons that need to keep the birther thing alive

personally i beleive the guy is 100% American-born, half Irish Kansas trailer trash.

does that make you feel better???

Actually it does I had you pegged for a birther, how long did it take for you to decide that you had been lied to?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You use a salon link to make that point? You just dmonstrated the impact of left wing news bias.

Too liberal for you huh? Yeah I understand.

The Main Stream Media is made up of a large number of diverse opinions. I'm sure you can find the same history elsewhere.

NO the MSM is NOT made up of diverse opinions!
Don't you read?
In 2008 85% of media donated money to Democrats!
1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

A specific example of how the MSM loves Democrats is this quote from the Editor of NewsWeek
COLOR="Blue"]I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God." [/COLOR]
Evan Thomas on Hardball,
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ‘Sort of God’

130,213 stories can't be swept under the rug and the Democrat Bias is very clear!
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election
BY PAUL BEDARD | MARCH 16, 2015 | 10:49 AM
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election

That's all by Republican/conservative choice. No one bars the Right from the media.

Bullshit! Non-lefties are ostracized by media.
What's more, editors decide what makes copy.

YOU are right! Editors/producers DO determine what makes the stories that people read/see.
So explain these EDITORS/producers political position?

Here an editor of NewsWeek supposedly a "professional journalist" takes a position regarding his "job".
And of course the MSM lapped Obama up to such a degree that the Editor of NewsWeek who once was asked about Bush:
"our job is to bash the president[Bush], that's what we do." Evan Thomas responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington, February 2, 2007.He-Could-Go-All-The-Way: 'Today' Cheers Obama's Football Play
But when it came to Obama???

"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Evan Thomas on Hardball, Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ‘Sort of God’
A professional NEWS editor calling a mortal man "sort of God"??? That's not reporting, that's gushing!

And putting THEIR money where their mouth is:
1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

Again...prove with FACTS and links that dispute the vast majority of the MSM is biased towards the left.

Remember, your opinions are formed by information you get from these biased MSM.
At least be intellectually honest to always preface whatever you read by the filter, 85% of MSM voted with their pocketbook for Democrats!

Maybe you should get the GOP to pass a law that makes it illegal for media outlets to express any pro-Democrat opinions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Any Democrat understands that they're running against both the media and the Republicans. It's how it's always been.

And any intelligent person isn't fooled by the Republican attempts to work the refs here. The Republican plan -- which has been very successful -- is to scream "LIBERAL MEDIA!" at any media source that fails to report on Republicans in glowing terms, which makes the media terrified of saying anything bad about Republicans. This thread is a good example of that strategy.

i never get tired of watching self-deluding idiots mind-phuk themselves with self-decpetions

the media is liberal with the exception of Fox. The examples are endless

There is no conservative talk radio? There are no conservative websites on the internet?

 

[NYcarbineer]

If liberals dominate the national media, it's because that's what the American people want.

That would prove we are a center left country, not a center right country as the RW'ers insist.

 

[healthmyths]

The right wing view of the world rarely stands up to intense scrutiny. Journalists are paid to dig into a story and all too often the additional information they uncover makes any initial knee-jerk reaction incorrect. Conservatives tend to stick to the opinion they formed of a story in the first few seconds even after a more complete and contradictory picture emerges. There's your liberal bias, it's not the media, it's conservatives being unable to alter their opinion over the life of a story.

If that would be the case then why write biased headlines that take out of context the content?

Case in point:What would be the purpose of this headline: "I Like Being Able to Fire People" said about Romney from this source:
Headlines for January 10, 2012 | Democracy Now!

Formed opinion about Romney without having to read the story...i.e. the purpose the editor had in writing this headline! The editor knew most people wouldn't read the
context. But this headline did the job.

Here are some examples of bias or stereotyping that we typically find in the news.

• Bias through selection and omission A report or editor can express a bias by choosing to use or not to use a specific news item. This is difficult to detect. Only by comparing news reports from a wide variety of outlets can the form of bias be observed.
• Bias through placement
  Readers of papers judge first page stories to be more significant than those buried in the back. Television and radio newscasts run the most important stories first and leave the less significant for later. So, where a story is placed can influence the importance of it to a viewer.
• Bias by headline
  Many people read only the headlines of a news item. Most people scan nearly all the headlines in a newspaper. Headlines are the most-read part of a paper. They can convey excitement where little exists. They can express approval or condemnation.
• Bias by photos, captions and camera angles
  Some pictures flatter a person, while others can make the person look unpleasant. Papers can choose photos to influence opinion about, for example, a candidate for election. On television, the choice of which visual images to display is extremely important.
• Bias through use of names and titles
  News media often use labels and titles to describe people, places, and events. A person can be called an "ex-con" or be referred to as someone who "served time 20 years ago for a minor offense." Whether a person is described as a "terrorist" or a "freedom fighter" is a clear indication of editorial bias.
• Bias through statistics and crowd counts
  To make a disaster seem more spectacular (and therefore worthy of reading about), numbers can be inflated. "A hundred injured in air crash" can be the same as "only minor injuries in air crash," reflecting the opinion of the person doing the counting.
• Word choice and tone
  Showing the same kind of bias that appears in headlines, the use of positive or negative words or words with a particular connotation can strongly influence the reader or viewer.

My Journey Home . For Teachers . Media Literacy Workshop | PBS

If you need more proof how your MSM bias presents the news to you thus helping you form your opinion check out this web site:Media Research Center

BE WARNED!!! IT is a biased site! If you don't want to see how the biased MSM has formed a left wing, Americans are evil, GOP is evil, capitalism is evil cabal
of organizations bent on BIASING the news...don't go there!

 

[occupied]

If liberals dominate the national media, it's because that's what the American people want.

That would prove we are a center left country, not a center right country as the RW'ers insist.

The truth simply has a liberal bias. Without the spin and hype, without omission and fabrication and without the all-important headline telling one how to feel about an issue it is very difficult to make a story appeal to conservatives.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The right wing view of the world rarely stands up to intense scrutiny. Journalists are paid to dig into a story and all too often the additional information they uncover makes any initial knee-jerk reaction incorrect. Conservatives tend to stick to the opinion they formed of a story in the first few seconds even after a more complete and contradictory picture emerges. There's your liberal bias, it's not the media, it's conservatives being unable to alter their opinion over the life of a story.

If that would be the case then why write biased headlines that take out of context the content?

Case in point:What would be the purpose of this headline: "I Like Being Able to Fire People" said about Romney from this source:
Headlines for January 10, 2012 | Democracy Now!

Formed opinion about Romney without having to read the story...i.e. the purpose the editor had in writing this headline! The editor knew most people wouldn't read the
context. But this headline did the job.

Here are some examples of bias or stereotyping that we typically find in the news.

• Bias through selection and omission A report or editor can express a bias by choosing to use or not to use a specific news item. This is difficult to detect. Only by comparing news reports from a wide variety of outlets can the form of bias be observed.
• Bias through placement
  Readers of papers judge first page stories to be more significant than those buried in the back. Television and radio newscasts run the most important stories first and leave the less significant for later. So, where a story is placed can influence the importance of it to a viewer.
• Bias by headline
  Many people read only the headlines of a news item. Most people scan nearly all the headlines in a newspaper. Headlines are the most-read part of a paper. They can convey excitement where little exists. They can express approval or condemnation.
• Bias by photos, captions and camera angles
  Some pictures flatter a person, while others can make the person look unpleasant. Papers can choose photos to influence opinion about, for example, a candidate for election. On television, the choice of which visual images to display is extremely important.
• Bias through use of names and titles
  News media often use labels and titles to describe people, places, and events. A person can be called an "ex-con" or be referred to as someone who "served time 20 years ago for a minor offense." Whether a person is described as a "terrorist" or a "freedom fighter" is a clear indication of editorial bias.
• Bias through statistics and crowd counts
  To make a disaster seem more spectacular (and therefore worthy of reading about), numbers can be inflated. "A hundred injured in air crash" can be the same as "only minor injuries in air crash," reflecting the opinion of the person doing the counting.
• Word choice and tone
  Showing the same kind of bias that appears in headlines, the use of positive or negative words or words with a particular connotation can strongly influence the reader or viewer.

My Journey Home . For Teachers . Media Literacy Workshop | PBS

If you need more proof how your MSM bias presents the news to you thus helping you form your opinion check out this web site:Media Research Center

BE WARNED!!! IT is a biased site! If you don't want to see how the biased MSM has formed a left wing, Americans are evil, GOP is evil, capitalism is evil cabal
of organizations bent on BIASING the news...don't go there!

The Media Research Center is one of the most rightwing biased sites on the internet.

 

[healthmyths]

Any Democrat understands that they're running against both the media and the Republicans. It's how it's always been.

And any intelligent person isn't fooled by the Republican attempts to work the refs here. The Republican plan -- which has been very successful -- is to scream "LIBERAL MEDIA!" at any media source that fails to report on Republicans in glowing terms, which makes the media terrified of saying anything bad about Republicans. This thread is a good example of that strategy.

i never get tired of watching self-deluding idiots mind-phuk themselves with self-decpetions

the media is liberal with the exception of Fox. The examples are endless

There is no conservative talk radio? There are no conservative websites on the internet?

Of course there is a conservative talk radio/websites.
NO one argues that!
What is being presented though is the pious phony story that the REST of the Media is NOT biased!

This is the hypocrisy! When people like you seem to ignore these FACTS:
Where did the MSM put their money in 2008?
In 2008 85% of media donated money to Democrats!
1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/28/o...etwork-execs-writers-reporters/#ixzz2O598MhzN

130,213 stories can't be swept under the rug that show that the Democrat Bias is very evident!
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election BY PAUL BEDARD | MARCH 16, 2015 | 10:49 AM
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election

 

[amrchaos]

OP--go over the Nixon campaign's

 

[healthmyths]

The right wing view of the world rarely stands up to intense scrutiny. Journalists are paid to dig into a story and all too often the additional information they uncover makes any initial knee-jerk reaction incorrect. Conservatives tend to stick to the opinion they formed of a story in the first few seconds even after a more complete and contradictory picture emerges. There's your liberal bias, it's not the media, it's conservatives being unable to alter their opinion over the life of a story.

If that would be the case then why write biased headlines that take out of context the content?

Case in point:What would be the purpose of this headline: "I Like Being Able to Fire People" said about Romney from this source:
Headlines for January 10, 2012 | Democracy Now!

Formed opinion about Romney without having to read the story...i.e. the purpose the editor had in writing this headline! The editor knew most people wouldn't read the
context. But this headline did the job.

Here are some examples of bias or stereotyping that we typically find in the news.

• Bias through selection and omission A report or editor can express a bias by choosing to use or not to use a specific news item. This is difficult to detect. Only by comparing news reports from a wide variety of outlets can the form of bias be observed.
• Bias through placement
  Readers of papers judge first page stories to be more significant than those buried in the back. Television and radio newscasts run the most important stories first and leave the less significant for later. So, where a story is placed can influence the importance of it to a viewer.
• Bias by headline
  Many people read only the headlines of a news item. Most people scan nearly all the headlines in a newspaper. Headlines are the most-read part of a paper. They can convey excitement where little exists. They can express approval or condemnation.
• Bias by photos, captions and camera angles
  Some pictures flatter a person, while others can make the person look unpleasant. Papers can choose photos to influence opinion about, for example, a candidate for election. On television, the choice of which visual images to display is extremely important.
• Bias through use of names and titles
  News media often use labels and titles to describe people, places, and events. A person can be called an "ex-con" or be referred to as someone who "served time 20 years ago for a minor offense." Whether a person is described as a "terrorist" or a "freedom fighter" is a clear indication of editorial bias.
• Bias through statistics and crowd counts
  To make a disaster seem more spectacular (and therefore worthy of reading about), numbers can be inflated. "A hundred injured in air crash" can be the same as "only minor injuries in air crash," reflecting the opinion of the person doing the counting.
• Word choice and tone
  Showing the same kind of bias that appears in headlines, the use of positive or negative words or words with a particular connotation can strongly influence the reader or viewer.

My Journey Home . For Teachers . Media Literacy Workshop | PBS

If you need more proof how your MSM bias presents the news to you thus helping you form your opinion check out this web site:Media Research Center

BE WARNED!!! IT is a biased site! If you don't want to see how the biased MSM has formed a left wing, Americans are evil, GOP is evil, capitalism is evil cabal
of organizations bent on BIASING the news...don't go there!

The Media Research Center is one of the most rightwing biased sites on the internet.

AND UNLIKE YOU I SHOWED this statement:
BE WARNED!!! IT is a biased site! If you don't want to see how the biased MSM has formed a left wing, Americans are evil, GOP is evil, capitalism is evil cabal
of organizations bent on BIASING the news...don't go there![/QUOTE]

Of course it is biased! But where is the same disclaimer from you regarding CBS/ABC/NBC etc.?
Why are you not as OPEN to presenting THEM as a biased source?
See I am obviously MORE honest as most conservatives are compared to liberals who have depended on LYING to get their ways.
After all you totally ignored Obama's grandiose statement that HE told you where he was going to LIE, use Tricks, Tactics!

And so from Obama's book "Dreams from My Father"...published July 18,1995
"It was usually an effective tactic, another one of those tricks I had learned.
People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves.
They were more than satisfied. They were revealed.
Such a pleasant surprise to find a well-mannered young black man who didn't seem angry all the time."

He like the MSM have to depend on "tricks", "tactics", to get their way. After all it was Obama who KNEW he had to lie and he counted on as his Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber who said that lack of transparency was a major part of getting Obamacare passed because “the stupidity of the American voter” would have killed the law if more people knew what was in it.
Obamacare Architect: Lack of Transparency Was Key Because ‘Stupidity Of The American Voter’ Would Have Killed Obamacare

Again... where is your disclaimer that the MSM i.e. ABC,CBS,NBC,PBR, etc... are all left biased media?

 

[healthmyths]

Any Democrat understands that they're running against both the media and the Republicans. It's how it's always been.

And any intelligent person isn't fooled by the Republican attempts to work the refs here. The Republican plan -- which has been very successful -- is to scream "LIBERAL MEDIA!" at any media source that fails to report on Republicans in glowing terms, which makes the media terrified of saying anything bad about Republicans. This thread is a good example of that strategy.

Any intelligent person would show their sources for such a statement as you made:
"Any Democrat understands that they're running against both the media and the Republicans. It's how it's always been."
Where is your proof?
As an intelligent person I've provided LINKS to the statements that I've shown made by others!
Where are your links?
Again...
Tell me democrats are running against:
In 2008 85% of media donated money to Democrats!
1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/08/28/o...etwork-execs-writers-reporters/#ixzz2O598MhzN

Tell me again Democrats were in the negative in this study:
Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election BY PAUL BEDARD | MARCH 16, 2015 | 10:49 AM
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election

Where are YOUR links PLEASE?

 

[BULLDOG]

But morons who fail to vet left wing biased news just perpetuate the dishonesty.

OR..., the people have vetted the news and have determined that it's the right that's dishonest. You have to work for what you get. Right wing whining about the media usually amounts to "we want it because we deserve it" with very little in the way of facts to back it up.

You just perpetuated the dishonesty.
You haven't noticed the news stories referring to repubs grilling Hillary but no mention of democrats failing to grill Hillary? You didn't see the biased misrepresentation of McCarthy's words about the effect as opposed to the reported purpose of the Benghazi investigation?

Are you saying that the media doesn't have the right to make their own decisions about what is right or wrong? The right is constantly whining about the imagined expectation of equal outcomes. Why would you demand equal outcomes when it comes to media workers right to make up their own minds? If you can't convince them that your way is right, that's your fault.....not theirs.

News media is supposed to report and document, not funnel the story.

Tell that to fox.

 

[BluesLegend]

Apparently the GOP leadership is the enemy, the MSM is the least of our problems. They just colluded with Obama and the Dem's in secret to pass a 2 year budget/debt increase that will require virtually every Dem vote to pass. The GOP rank and file were not consulted and still haven't seen the details. These assholes should just join the Democratic party why the big charade?

 

[bedowin62]

Too liberal for you huh? Yeah I understand.

The Main Stream Media is made up of a large number of diverse opinions. I'm sure you can find the same history elsewhere.

NO the MSM is NOT made up of diverse opinions!
Don't you read?
In 2008 85% of media donated money to Democrats!
1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

A specific example of how the MSM loves Democrats is this quote from the Editor of NewsWeek
COLOR="Blue"]I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God." [/COLOR]
Evan Thomas on Hardball,
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ‘Sort of God’

130,213 stories can't be swept under the rug and the Democrat Bias is very clear!
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election
BY PAUL BEDARD | MARCH 16, 2015 | 10:49 AM
Smooch: Study of 130,213 stories shows Obama bias in 2012 election

That's all by Republican/conservative choice. No one bars the Right from the media.

Bullshit! Non-lefties are ostracized by media.
What's more, editors decide what makes copy.

YOU are right! Editors/producers DO determine what makes the stories that people read/see.
So explain these EDITORS/producers political position?

Here an editor of NewsWeek supposedly a "professional journalist" takes a position regarding his "job".
And of course the MSM lapped Obama up to such a degree that the Editor of NewsWeek who once was asked about Bush:
"our job is to bash the president[Bush], that's what we do." Evan Thomas responding to a question on whether the media's unfair to Bush on the TV talk show Inside Washington, February 2, 2007.He-Could-Go-All-The-Way: 'Today' Cheers Obama's Football Play
But when it came to Obama???

"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."
Evan Thomas on Hardball, Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: Obama Is ‘Sort of God’
A professional NEWS editor calling a mortal man "sort of God"??? That's not reporting, that's gushing!

And putting THEIR money where their mouth is:
1,160 (85%) of the 1,353 of the Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democrats candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Obama, Democrats got 88 percent of 2008 contributions by TV network execs, writers, reporters

Again...prove with FACTS and links that dispute the vast majority of the MSM is biased towards the left.

Remember, your opinions are formed by information you get from these biased MSM.
At least be intellectually honest to always preface whatever you read by the filter, 85% of MSM voted with their pocketbook for Democrats!

Maybe you should get the GOP to pass a law that makes it illegal for media outlets to express any pro-Democrat opinions.

you mean the way the Left AND THEIR HATE-FILLED ALLIES tried to crush Fox News and the New York Post leftard?


idiots and hypocrites

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Main Stream Media is the enemy of partisans not moderates.



The birth of Fox News sprang from Murdoch’s decision to create a television empire around sports, as he had previously in Australia and the U.K. In 1993 Fox bought the rights to broadcast the games of the NFL’s then dominant NFC division, swiping football from CBS for nearly $1.6 billion. “We’re a network now. Like no other sport will do, the NFL will make us into a real network,” Murdoch exulted to Sports Illustrated. “In the future there will be 400 or 500 channels on cable, and ratings will be fragmented. But football on Sunday will have the same ratings, regardless of the number of channels. Football will not fragment.”

He was right. And he wanted a winning weekly bookend for football to strike at another top-rated CBS program. “At that stage, Rupert Murdoch had in mind to set up a Fox News answer to ’60 Minutes,’” Neil told me. “It was to be an hour-long news show going out after the NFL football program on Fox.” His costar was to be Judith Regan, a young woman who had sliced her way to the top-selling echelons of the book publishing business. Smart, and possessed of finely sharpened elbows, Regan had by this point been rewarded with her own imprint, ReganBooks, at Murdoch’s HarperCollins publishing house. Neil started getting uneasy as Murdoch brought in a consultant to help punch up the concept of what news would look and sound like on Fox. The idea of creating a show yielded to the idea of creating an entire cable network—a niche news channel.

The new network would speak to viewers who felt the rest of the press was too liberal, like the New York Times, even 60 Minutes itself. The consultant had been a political strategist for presidents Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush, the executive producer of a TV show starring Rush Limbaugh, and the head of financial news channel CNBC.

His name was Roger Ailes.

The birth of Fox News - Salon.com

You use a salon link to make that point? You just dmonstrated the impact of left wing news bias.

Too liberal for you huh? Yeah I understand.

The Main Stream Media is made up of a large number of diverse opinions. I'm sure you can find the same history elsewhere.

MSM is guided by institutional left wing bias.

Finally, someone on the Right Wing ventured a definition of left wing bias, an institutional bias for truth.