Claims of Liberal Bias in Media

[Texsox]

For my fav GOPers, I've heard claims from Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Focus on the Family, and others that there is a liberal bias in the media.

 

Why is that bad?

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

For my fav GOPers, I've heard claims from Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Focus on the Family, and others that there is a liberal bias in the media.

 

Why is that bad?

Is that supposed to be in green?

 

 

Why should the media slant & spin the news for the benefit of the left? What happened to that time honored media tradition of objectivity?

 

That's alright though, people vote with their remote control's when it comes to TV news coverage & that's why Fox news has soaring ratings while the networks are all floundering.

[mreye]

For my fav GOPers, I've heard claims from Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, Focus on the Family, and others that there is a liberal bias in the media.

 

Why is that bad?

I think it's bad because way too many people are ignorant to actual current events and get their entire news from the 6 second sound clip on the evening newscast.

 

I don't really think it's a calculated bias. I mean, I'm sure they don't have secret meetings in a cellar under a building in NY, and have a secret handshake or anything like that. It's just who they are. I honestly believe that the majority of them don't realize that they are doing it.

[Texsox]

Is that supposed to be in green?

 

 

Why should the media slant & spin the news for the benefit of the left?  What happened to that time honored media tradition of objectivity?

 

That's alright though,  people vote with their remote control's when it comes to TV news coverage & that's why Fox news has soaring ratings while the networks are all floundering.

Then why doesn't the GOP complain about bias in the media? Read the Washington Times, Wall Street Journal, etc. and there is a conservative bias to the news. Isn't that as wrong as a liberal slant?

 

What happened to the time honored tradition of objectivity? It is still there but the GOP has mounted a campaign to avoid any criticism of their policies. The GOP doesn't want an unbiased media, they want you to reject any criticism of them as just liberal bias and accept the praise that their media heaps on. It's a nice campaign strategy, but undermines a key freedom we, the public have, which is our free speech and free press.

 

I am all for a campaign for objectivity in the media, but have it on both sides. In my corner of the globe, the only English language talk station is 100% conservative. 24/7. Where is the balance in the media? 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, all Republican commentators.

[mreye]

In my corner of the globe, the only English language talk show is 100% conservative. 24/7. Where is the balance in the media? 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, all Republican commentators.

That's the listener's fault. If studies showed that 10 Liberal talk shows could kick ass in Texas, there would be ten of them the next day. Don't blame that on the GOP.

[Texsox]

That's the listener's fault. If studies showed that 10 Liberal talk shows could kick ass in Texas, there would be ten of them the next day. Don't blame that on the GOP.

I am not blaming that on the GOP, I am just pointing out that there are plenty of conservative outlets, yet no complaints.

[kapkomet]

No way. They know what they are doing. Whatever is the headline of the day, is more about making money off of it then anything else. I don't think often times it's meant to be political, it's more about ratings and advertising royalties because they broke the news first.

[mreye]

I am not blaming that on the GOP, I am just pointing out that there are plenty of conservative outlets, yet no complaints.

I hear complaints all the time from the left about the overwelming conservativeness(word? ) of talk radio. But here's the difference, talk radio is commentary. People should know that going in. TV news is supposed to be just that: NEWS. They claim they are impartial, but they continually add commentary when no commentary is neccesary.

[Texsox]

I hear complaints all the time from the left about the overwelming conservativeness(word? ) of talk radio. But here's the difference, talk radio is commentary. People should know that going in. TV news is supposed to be just that: NEWS. They claim they are impartial, but they continually add commentary when no commentary is neccesary.

What would you rather have, a 26 second news clip that may be biased slightly away from you, or 24 hours of totally biased media telling your side of the story?

 

[Controlled Chaos]

We had this convo on here many times....Here was one thing that really made it stand out to me. There was an onlsaught about what Clarke said in his book, but I still have yet to see any of those networks ever report on what Clarke said back in 2002. WHY??

 

This was from am old post...

 

I still want to know why, ABC, CBS, NBC or any of the papers I have seen, havent' said anything about Clarkes comments back in 2002. Am I the only one who gets a little pissed off on this?? Whether you are on the left or right don't you feel you are getting half the story most of the time?? I mean seriously, I can not BELIEVE that the only place this information is on is FOX NEWS. This is an important story....I mean here is a bitter man absolutly tearing into Bush, yet he had praised him in August of 2002 for stopping Clintons roll backs on terrrorism and increasing the pressure 5 fold. Isn't this important?? If the major networks don't even want to do a whole story at least publish the f***in transcripts!!!! I can read the Clarke ripping on bush transcripts in the Lava Hot Springs Idaho Post, but I can't find the transcripts of him PRAISING the administration on any major news network??? The news is suppose to be NEUTRAL...at least give us both f***in sides. http://www.soxtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=16439&hl=clarke

[Texsox]

Chaos,

 

Why doesn't the GOP complain about bias in the media? They only complain about liberal bias. Pick up the Washington Times, it's nothing but Republican press releases.

 

We need balance and objective reporting, clearly defined editorials, and opinion pieces. We also need a free press. Don't let the government erode one of our essential tools in keeping the government honest.

[kapkomet]

There are always alternatives, Tex. And what most GOP folks get upset is the above post that Chaos pulled out. Most uneducated people get their news from the big 4. And that "most" is definitely enough to sway the opinions of others. There is ALWAYS another side to a story, and most of the time, the big 4 only reports the negatives. Without negativity, folks on the left wouldn't have much to shoot at these days, IMO. The worse the news, the worse people feel, the better the electoral changes of Mr. Kerry. Let's face it, if the news were by in large positive, and people felt good about what was going on, the election would be a landside. THAT's why the news gets reported the way it does, it feeds their livelyhoods... negativity... it's a shame, but it holds some truth.

[Controlled Chaos]

Chaos,

 

Why doesn't the GOP complain about bias in the media? They only complain about liberal bias. Pick up the Washington Times, it's nothing but Republican press releases.

 

We need balance and objective reporting, clearly defined editorials, and opinion pieces. We also need a free press. Don't let the government erode one of our essential tools in keeping the government honest.

What you are asking for is a bit unrealistic...you want the GOP to complain about the the very minute percentage of news sources that slant thigns their way, before complaing about the oppostions.

 

Let's put it in the perspective of Cubs and Sox coverage. If both organizatoins were suppose to be covered equally, but it was very clear the Cubs were covered more favorably in say 85% of the Media Market and the Sox were covered more favorably in 15%....Would you expect the Sox to complain about their 15% of favorability bias in the media or the Cubs 85% of favorability??

 

We would complain about the Cubs...

 

If there were 14 broadcasters in Chicago sports 2,5,7,9,32 and 12 of them were cubs fans and 2 were sox fans...and reprted the news as such....then I wouldn't say Im sick of this bias in the media with those two sox fan reporters....

[Texsox]

I want politicians to respect the rights that we have as Americans. I am concerned that the consistant attacks at the media weakens our ability to effectively monitor our politicians and government. The press is our watchdogs, they are our eyes and ears. Perfect? Of course not, but necessary.

 

Imagine this scenario. The Dems and the Reps finally agree on something. The media is irresponsible in how they report the news. Let's start a government run news service that will just fairly and accuratly report what is happening. Since it is the government reporting on themselves, you will get the whole story, not just excerpts. We'll just get rid of the free press because no one trusts them anymore.

 

I believe Brando would be familar with the concept, I think I'm describing TASS.

 

I remember an NRA letter I received once which talked about how the first thing an occupying force does is control private weapons. I thought how wrong they are, the first thing they attack and control are the TV, Radio, and Newspapers. We are being attacked by a well orchestrated political campaign to mistrust and ignore our media. Do not let them win or we all lose.

[kapkomet]

But how can you refute examples like this?

 

 

I still want to know why, ABC, CBS, NBC or any of the papers I have seen, havent' said anything about Clarkes comments back in 2002. Am I the only one who gets a little pissed off on this?? Whether you are on the left or right don't you feel you are getting half the story most of the time?? I mean seriously, I can not BELIEVE that the only place this information is on is FOX NEWS. This is an important story....I mean here is a bitter man absolutly tearing into Bush, yet he had praised him in August of 2002 for stopping Clintons roll backs on terrrorism and increasing the pressure 5 fold. Isn't this important?? If the major networks don't even want to do a whole story at least publish the f***in transcripts!!!! I can read the Clarke ripping on bush transcripts in the Lava Hot Springs Idaho Post, but I can't find the transcripts of him PRAISING the administration on any major news network??? The news is suppose to be NEUTRAL...at least give us both f***in sides. http://www.soxtalk.com/index.php?showtopic=16439&hl=clarke

[Controlled Chaos]

I want politicians to respect the rights that we have as Americans. I am concerned that the consistant attacks at the media weakens our ability to effectively monitor our politicians and government. The press is our watchdogs, they are our eyes and ears. Perfect? Of course not, but necessary.

 

Imagine this scenario. The Dems and the Reps finally agree on something. The media is irresponsible in how they report the news. Let's start a government run news service that will just fairly and accuratly report what is happening. Since it is the government reporting on themselves, you will get the whole story, not just excerpts. We'll just get rid of the free press because no one trusts them anymore.

 

I believe Brando would be familar with the concept, I think I'm describing TASS.

 

I remember an NRA letter I received once which talked about how the first thing an occupying force does is control private weapons. I thought how wrong they are, the first thing they attack and control are the TV, Radio, and Newspapers. We are being attacked by a well orchestrated political campaign to mistrust and ignore our media. Do not let them win or we all lose.

All the work I went through with that Sox Cubs analogy and you didn't even acknolwledge it.

 

I don't believe we will EVER have a governement run news. It wouldn't be allowed to happen by either party. We will always have our own news. It is what this country was founded on. I am just asking for it to be equal. I'm glad I heard what Clarke had to say in his book, but there is NO reason I should have to switch the channel to get what Clarke said two years prior. That was a pretty big story IMO and totally contradicted what he said in his book. That guy was the lead story on every newscast for at least a week....and never did the big three mention his comments. It got to be a game for me where I went home every night and flipped through CBS, NBC, ABC news at 5:30 to see if they would say it and they didn't. Fox broke the story and besides the radio(I'm assuming they had it...I don't really listen) and alternative media, it wasn't played anywhere else. I want both sides...that's all I'm asking.

[Texsox]

All the work I went through with that Sox Cubs analogy and you didn't even acknolwledge it.

 

I don't believe we will EVER have a governement run news.  It wouldn't be allowed to happen by either party.  We will always have our own news.  It is what this country was founded on.  I am just asking for it to be equal.  I'm glad I heard what Clarke had to say in his book, but there is NO reason I should have to switch the channel to get what Clarke said two years prior.  That was a pretty big story IMO and totally contradicted what he said in his book.  That guy was the lead story on every newscast for at least a week....and never did the big three mention his comments.  It got to be a game for me where I went home every night and flipped through CBS, NBC, ABC news at 5:30 to see if they would say it and they didn't.  Fox broke the story and besides the radio(I'm assuming they had it...I don't really listen) and alternative media, it wasn't played anywhere else.  I want both sides...that's all I'm asking.

Nice Cubs Sox analogy and you are correct, all those conservative Cub fans get coverage

 

What I find interesting is wanting "both sides of the story". I always wanted to get the story, not sides. We do not have time for custom news. Would you spend 5 minutes reading one side and then the other? If the networks did go in that depth we would hear, yeah they covered this but not that, see their bias?!

 

As I wrote, my biggest fear is the GOP is mounting a campaign to have the public reject any criticism of them. Whenever any coverage is less than flattering, theys end Rush, Hannity, and the boys to discredit the media, not the message.

 

I don't like politicans erroding my freedoms for their own gain.

 

The three things that have chased me from the GOP

 

Balanced Budgets. If we are going to add expenses, have the guts to put through a tax increase. Don't give me stuff and tell me I'll never have to pay for it because of projected economic growth. Unless a considerable number of new people join the tax rolls and no one falls off, I'm eventually going to have to pay for it. Balance the budget. Come to the public when you want to add something new, or want to fight a war and tell us to pay the piper. That would get spending in line in a hurry.

 

Their campaign to destroy journalism and monopolize opinion and editorials.

 

Their campaign to erode the powers of Judges to protect us from them.

 

In a GOP world, the press would not criticize and if they did the public will ignore them, Rush, etc. would heap praise, Good judges would overturn Rowe v. Wade, Activist Judges would be removed from the bench, and politicians would be cheered for deficits because we'll all be millionaires in a month or two with the booming economy.

[EvilMonkey]

Ever notice how there never seem to be any liberal think-tanks, just conservative ones? Is that true, or is 'liberal' just never added in front when talking about them? Someone pointed out earlier in this thread that they didn't think alot of the netowrk people did that on purpose, but they do seem to identify 'conservatives' alot. If they show a group of Senators walking into the White House, they may say something like 'There's Senator Jones from Arizona, and behind him is the conservative Senator from Montana'. Why the need to identify who the conservative is, but not label the other as a liberal?

[kapkomet]

And while we're at it, how about Mr. Peter Jennings tonight when the funeral was on? I about upchecked my dinner when that asshole did what he did.

 

Perfectly quiet, respecting moment as the casket was going up the stairs, and to make the comment about (paraphrasing) Reagan's relationship with the African-American community or lack thereof ... but naaaaaaah, there's no bias there. None at all.

 

What Bull s***.

 

And then, later in the broadcast, Sam Donaldson (who I think is a dick anyway) went into the 5 minute speil about what would Reagan think of Bush administration policy about not showing the caskets coming back from Iraq?

 

Look, these are valid points - and some that could be debated in the RIGHT TIME AND PLACE. But these f***ers are supposed to be broadcasting the NEWS, not editorializing as they go... but... there's no slant in the mainstream media.*cough cough*

[EvilMonkey]

And while we're at it, how about Mr. Peter Jennings tonight when the funeral was on?  I about upchecked my dinner when that asshole did what he did.

 

Perfectly quiet, respecting moment as the casket was going up the stairs, and to make the comment about (paraphrasing) Reagan's relationship with the African-American community or lack thereof ... but naaaaaaah, there's no bias there.  None at all.

 

What Bull s***.

 

And then, later in the broadcast, Sam Donaldson (who I think is a dick anyway) went into the 5 minute speil about what would Reagan think of Bush administration policy about not showing the caskets coming back from Iraq?

 

Look, these are valid points - and some that could be debated in the RIGHT TIME AND PLACE.  But these f***ers are supposed to be broadcasting the NEWS, not editorializing as they go... but... there's no slant in the mainstream media.*cough cough*

Touche', monsiour pussycat! (I hope I spelled that right!)

[LowerCaseRepublican]

The media is only as liberal as the conservative editors. Owners have editorial control and decide what is printed.

 

In another thread about the "liberal media", I posted a lot of facts that refute it in print media. There were even quotes of top conservatives stating that the idea of the liberal media was just an excuse for conservative policy failures being exposed.

 

There are asshats, both liberal and conservative. If the newscasters are reporting FACTS, then that is not bias. It's a bit better than the conservative move by Bill O'Reilly saying that the French economy was losing "billions of dollars" and quoting a Paris financial magazine. Only problem is that there is no magazine by that name and the asshat just made it the f*** up.

 

I personally would have liked to see them discuss Reagan's involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal or how he helped to arm, train and fund what would become Al Qaeda etc. etc. Thankfully William Rivers Pitt obliged with a pretty tasteful Reagan obit on Truthout http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/060704A.shtml

 

As for media conglomoration...

"The past two decades have seen the number of major

corporations which dominate movies, music, cable, radio,

newspapers, books, magazines, the Internet and TV dwindle from

50 to less than two dozen, with much of the control

concentrated in fewer than ten massive conglomerates. The

largest firms today do well over ten times the business of the

largest media firms of the late 1980s. The result is a

cartel-like arrangement in which a few closely-linked industry

giants call the shots to maximize profits by reducing

competition and lowering risk.

 

Fueling this shift is corporate-sponsored "deregulation" as

well as the government's collapsing commitment to antitrust

prosecution. While enriching investors, these changes have

impoverished democracy. The public is viewed as consumers by

the media rather than informed and engaged citizens."

 

Unfortunately, radio is much the same. The state of radio

today is dire: perhaps nothing has devastated the diversity of

voices heard on our nation's airwaves than the

Telecommunications Act of 1996. With its relaxation of

ownership caps, the number of radio station owners decreased

by 34 percent even as the number of commercial radio stations

increased by 5.4 percent. Dramatic changes have ensued indeed:

in 1996, the largest radio-station owning entities owned fewer

than 65 stations; today, one Clear Channel owns upwards of

1,200. Proponents of such a policy shift claim this has

resulted in more efficient and effective operations by

allowing broadcasting companies to take advantage of economies

of scale. (source: Free Press Media Reform)

 

It's obvious from the Clear Channel hores*** we've seen with the huge fines/dumping of Howard Stern in areas that media conglomeration is a huge problem that needs to be addressed.

[Texsox]

That is another interesting point. One answer is more, not less, independent news outlets. Yet, the GOP has voted time and again for large corporate takeovers and mergers, while DEMS have fought to keep the restrictions on ownership.

 

It use to be that one person or company could own multiple TV, Radio, and newspapers in the same area. In the interest of competition, the GOP has been steadily easing these restrictions.