[Frank Costanza]

Originally Posted by Number 5

I can't find a single legitimate source for this. Wikipedia does not cover it either, which is unusual if there's solid backing for it. Basically, I don't buy it and it's not news because there's no solid proof behind these accusations.

Then maybe you needed to watch the New Jersey election coverage because it was issue number 1. I don't get my facts and or coverage from Wikipedia but its not surprising you don't buy it.

Murtha may have a pork problem, which is not something I approve of, but he's not under any investigation for criminal activities to my knowledge. And the national media rarely reports on the individual pork problems of members of either party.

That's because an investigation is not for public view so therefore to base an opinion on your "knowledge" of the situation isn't very wise.

They don't report it? Seems to me that earmarking was a MAJOR concern this election year. Have you not watched any of the coverage?

Gerry Stubbs? That was over 20 years ago, not exactly breaking news. And FWIW, Stubbs married and lived the rest of his life with that page. It was inappropriate for sure, but since it was apparently true love I wouldn't consider it sleazy like the Foley thing. And since the people of his state wanted to reelect him then that's their business. If Foley had stayed on and been reelected then I'd have no complaint about that either.

I love how Stubbs gets an excuse but Foley does not. Unbelievable.

By the way, do you really feel Kerry's botched joke is equivalent to the Foley cover-up as a national news story? How many days should the media have kept on beating Kerry after he apologized?

Hmm...Kerry, who ran for President in 2004 and was planning to run in 2008, botched a joke about the troops during a time of war compared to nasty IM's from a Congressmen.

Yeah, they are comparable


Can you get anymore left wing biased?

[Frank Costanza]

Originally Posted by size

A problem lies in the fact that many people are too blind to see their own bias. While I think many may not intend on being bias, in reality they are; equally so, I think some intend to be bias b/c they believe they are correct so they feel it is acceptable. Unfortunately, this encourages distortions of truth and ignorance on topics.

I book worth reading is Bias by Goldberg.

Thats just right wing propaganda!


"That is Bernard Goldberg’s point, laid out in 223 pages of his new book, "Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News” (Regnery).

This is not Rush Limbaugh complaining for the 100th time of "bias in the liberal media.”

This comes from the pen of a man who was a correspondent for CBS News, having worked inside the company for 28 years. Nor is the author part of the so-called "vast right-wing conspiracy” imagined by Hillary Clinton. Since Bernie Goldberg first broke his silence and went public with an op-ed piece on media bias in the Wall Street Journal in February 1996, he had never voted for a single Republican.

There is an elitist culture at the major networks, he alleges, and that goes for the so-called "prestige press,” as well. The electronic media steal much of their material from the New York Times and the Washington Post, the ultimate icons of the "Eastern establishment press.”

Another former CBS News employee said to this writer that "anyone working at CBS News who is not a leftist knows how it must have felt to be a black kid in a white school in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, back in 1938.”

[Number 5]

Originally Posted by klugman

The media is without a doubt biased way, way to the left. People like bioman will never admit or see this. Despite the fact that liberal Bernie Goldberg (proud, card carrying liberal) has come out and documented the incredible liberal bias in the media in his excellent book Bias (as was already mentioned here).

Goldberg's work has some serious problems and some of the claims he made turned out to be false. See here for details: American Prospect Online - ViewPrint

You can also visit mediamatters.org and fair.org for the liberal point of view about the media. The former has documented the fact that conservative guests outnumber liberal guests on the news talk shows.

Let’s look at just a few facts here:

CNN made up the whole Operation Tailwind report accusing US troops of gassing American deserters with nerve gas in Laos.
CNN - CNN retracts Tailwind coverage - July 2, 1998

How is this an example of liberal bias?

Do we need to rehash the whole episode where Mary Mapes and Dan Rather created fake documents critical of President Bush’s service in the national guard?

Both got fired. And let's not pretend that using unconfirmed evidence is the norm in reporting or exclusive to the left. (Judith Miller comes to mind).

Another great example of media bias was when Ned Lamont defeated Joe Lieberman here in the CT democratic primary. Various media outlets trumpeted this in the shrillest of voices…declaring that Lieberman, Bush’s stooge and willing yesman (another foul distortion unto itself - Lieberman votes democrat on 95% of the issues like affirmative action, abortion, etc.) was finished and that the mainstream of CT was ready to embrace the platform of the anti-war left.

The truth of the matter was that only a small turnout voted in the early August primary and that the bulk of votes were the anti-war, anti-US pro France nutbags.

Tuesday proved that Lamont and his retreat and defeat positions were soundly rejected. Does the media report this as a crushing defeat for the left?

Let's see here:

Lieberman has been 100% behind Bush's Iraq policy and a cheerleader for it even though his constituents disapprove. He still claims that he would vote to go in knowing everything he knows now and bashes dems who want to redeploy. That's why he got in trouble.

The CT Dem primary turnout 43%, the highest in CT history.

Lieberman still lost to Lamont among Dems votes by a huge margin. The only reason he won as an independent is because the republicans voted for him instead of their own candidate. He got 70% of the republicans and only 33% of the dems.

[Frank Costanza]

Originally Posted by Number 5

Goldberg's work has some serious problems and some of the claims he made turned out to be false. See here for details: American Prospect Online - ViewPrint

You can also visit mediamatters.org and fair.org for the liberal point of view about the media. The former has documented the fact that conservative guests outnumber liberal guests on the news talk shows.

Right. One article completely destroys a 223 page book.

Its obvious what you "choose" to believe.

Both got fired. And let's not pretend that using unconfirmed evidence is the norm in reporting or exclusive to the left. (Judith Miller comes to mind).

Of course they did. They had no choice. If they didn't then they would lose ALL credibility....

Or they could hire Katie Couric to get it back.

Let's see here:

Lieberman has been 100% behind Bush's Iraq policy and a cheerleader for it even though his constituents disapprove. He still claims that he would vote to go in knowing everything he knows now and bashes dems who want to redeploy. That's why he got in trouble.

He got in trouble because he didn't tow the party line on one issue that would effect an election.

The CT Dem primary turnout 43%, the highest in CT history.

Lieberman still lost to Lamont among Dems votes by a huge margin. The only reason he won as an independent is because the republicans voted for him instead of their own candidate. He got 70% of the republicans and only 33% of the dems.

Sorry, he won because of the independent vote. Connecticut doesnt even have a large amount of registered Republicans. Its a blue state with a large amount of independents.

[Number 5]

Originally Posted by Bobo

Right. One article completely destroys a 223 page book.

Its obvious what you "choose" to believe.

Well damn, if there's a book and it over 200 pages there it must be true. How about reading the article?

I call it as I see it. If you think Kerry's botched joked should have is equivalent to the Foley cover-up then obviously we don't see the same things.

Of course they did. They had no choice. If they didn't then they would lose ALL credibility....

Yeah, which is why news broadcasters don't do things like that on purpose.

Or they could hire Katie Couric to get it back.

What does Katie Couric have to do with "liberal media?" I have no opinion about her, but you are the first one I've seen to bring her up as evidence of the "liberal media."

He got in trouble because he didn't tow the party line on one issue that would effect an election.

It's one big issue and Lieberman went well beyond just not towing the line on it.

Sorry, he won because of the independent vote. Connecticut doesnt even have a large amount of registered Republicans. Its a blue state with a large amount of independents.

CT had 26% republicans, 36% independents and 38% dems in the election. Take out all the republican votes from everyone and Lamont would have won.

[Number 5]

Here's a link to the mediamatters study: If It's Sunday, It's Conservative: An analysis of the Sunday talk show guests on ABC, CBS, and NBC, 1997 - 2005

The basic finding is that conservatives and Republicans get more air time than liberals and Democrats on Sunday talk shows.

[Frank Costanza]

Originally Posted by Number 5

Well damn, if there's a book and it over 200 pages there it must be true. How about reading the article?

I call it as I see it. If you think Kerry's botched joked should have is equivalent to the Foley cover-up then obviously we don't see the same things.

Who said it was completely true? Its just ANOTHER source showing the bias of the media. Opinion is never true, just opinion.

Of course we don't see the same thing. I don't make excuses for the right or left but you seem to be selectively believing what you want to see and believe (which definetly leans left). I believe the major news organizations are liberal biased and FOX is much more conservative based. Its not a big revelation. The only ones who don't believe are the news organizations and liberals. Wonder why.

Yeah, which is why news broadcasters don't do things like that on purpose.

Right...News broadcasters would never do something they are not supposed to do.

What does Katie Couric have to do with "liberal media?" I have no opinion about her, but you are the first one I've seen to bring her up as evidence of the "liberal media."

Its an example of credibility vs. rating, not liberal or right wing. Your main news anchor was hired for pure ratings, nothing else. It shows you what is more important. Its a side point.

It's one big issue and Lieberman went well beyond just not towing the line on it.

No he didn't. He stood by his belief. He stood by what he voted and believed in. He stood by what the majority of the Democratic party voted for but when it comes to election time and the polls show the public is sick of the war, its adios for Joe if you don't follow the party line to win elections.

CT had 26% republicans, 36% independents and 38% dems in the election. Take out all the republican votes from everyone and Lamont would have won.

So what? It means nothing. If conservatives have a choice between Lieberman or Lamont, they are going to pick the guy pro-war vs. the Moveon.org candidate. Everyone knew the Republican would never win because its a blue state. Pick the lesser of 2 evils. It happens all the time.

[Frank Costanza]

Originally Posted by Number 5

Here's a link to the mediamatters study: If It's Sunday, It's Conservative: An analysis of the Sunday talk show guests on ABC, CBS, and NBC, 1997 - 2005

The basic finding is that conservatives and Republicans get more air time than liberals and Democrats on Sunday talk shows.

And the point?

You could have 90% of conservatives on and still have a 90% favorable view of Democrats if all you do is bash Republicans.

Republicans get more airtime than Democrats on Sunday morning talk shows. Big deal! Its a talk show, not the news cast.

[Number 5]

Originally Posted by Bobo

Of course we don't see the same thing. I don't make excuses for the right or left but you seem to be selectively believing what you want to see and believe (which definetly leans left). I believe the major news organizations are liberal biased and FOX is much more conservative based. Its not a big revelation. The only ones who don't believe are the news organizations and liberals. Wonder why.

Well for someone who doesn't make excuses for either side you sure seem to drag out all the conservative talking points. Like Gerry Studds. I mention Foley because he's relevant to the topic of why Repubs received bad coverage in the last two months and you bring up some 20+ year old Dem scandal straight off the GOP playbook.

Right...News broadcasters would never do something they are not supposed to do.

Give me break. They wouldn't use false evidence knowingly because they'd get fired as Rather did.

The point here is that Rather was one example, and there have certainly been others both on the left and right, but if you want to prove that a liberal bias exists in the media then you have to establish a pattern.

Its an example of credibility vs. rating, not liberal or right wing. Your main news anchor was hired for pure ratings, nothing else. It shows you what is more important. Its a side point.

I'm not defending their credibility. I just don't believe there's a particular pro-Dem bias in the news media and you haven't offered any evidence to the contrary.

No he didn't. He stood by his belief. He stood by what he voted and believed in. He stood by what the majority of the Democratic party voted for but when it comes to election time and the polls show the public is sick of the war, its adios for Joe if you don't follow the party line to win elections.

The majority of the national Democratic party (house + senate) voted against the Iraq war resolution, though it is true that a majority of the Senate Dems went along with it. Lieberman was one the Senators to introduce it by the way. If he wants to stand by that decision then fine, but he shouldn't threaten other Dems who disagree or tell people things are going great in Iraq when they are not.

[Number 5]

Originally Posted by Bobo

And the point?

You could have 90% of conservatives on and still have a 90% favorable view of Democrats if all you do is bash Republicans.

Republicans get more airtime than Democrats on Sunday morning talk shows. Big deal! Its a talk show, not the news cast.

The news cast should just include actual news that are factually correct and presented without editorial spin, except in special cases. Balanced panel discussions are fine too IMO. But what constitutes actual news? Well there's a lot of gray area so you just look at whether similar political stories and scandals on both left and right get equivalent coverage, and I see no evidence that they do not.

For example, do you really think the Iraq war coverage will be different now that the Dems took the House and the Senate? Or would it be different if a Dem president took office now? I don't think so because I have not seen any evidence or studies to prove otherwise.

[Frank Costanza]

Originally Posted by Number 5

Well for someone who doesn't make excuses for either side you sure seem to drag out all the conservative talking points. Like Gerry Studds. I mention Foley because he's relevant to the topic of why Repubs received bad coverage in the last two months and you bring up some 20+ year old Dem scandal straight off the GOP playbook.

Of course it seems that way for you since you give the conservative side no credit at all. You follow the liberal playbook to a T. The media is not biased and the conservative side gets no credit. All studies and books stating the media is biased are false and I'm sure you can find any excuse to give the left wing a break while condemning everything conservative. You are REAL objective.

Give me break. They wouldn't use false evidence knowingly because they'd get fired as Rather did.

Right, they are ALL honest and do the right thing.

The point here is that Rather was one example, and there have certainly been others both on the left and right, but if you want to prove that a liberal bias exists in the media then you have to establish a pattern.

The study and book did but you won't believe those because for every pattern that's shows a liberal bias you can find an excuse to let them off the hook. Typical though, bash conservatives while giving everything and anything liberal based a break.

I'm not defending their credibility. I just don't believe there's a particular pro-Dem bias in the news media and you haven't offered any evidence to the contrary.

Yeah, the study doesnt show anything

..but its obvious what you choose to believe no matter what evidence. CBS, NBC and ABC could make statements that they are Pro-Dem and you still wouldn't believe it or make another excuse to let them slide.

The majority of the national Democratic party (house + senate) voted against the Iraq war resolution, though it is true that a majority of the Senate Dems went along with it. Lieberman was one the Senators to introduce it by the way. If he wants to stand by that decision then fine, but he shouldn't threaten other Dems who disagree or tell people things are going great in Iraq when they are not.

Threaten? Where did he threaten anything? The Democratic party bascially gave him the boot with both support and funding for sticking to his beliefs.

When has he said things are going great? He said he believed in the principal behind the war and stuck to it but according to liberals that's the same as saying "The war is great, its going smoothly, nothing to see here".

Can you spin it anymore left wing?

[Frank Costanza]

Originally Posted by Number 5

For example, do you really think the Iraq war coverage will be different now that the Dems took the House and the Senate? Or would it be different if a Dem president took office now? I don't think so because I have not seen any evidence or studies to prove otherwise.

How you can you have evidence and studies to prove that point? They were just elected into office.

Even IF there were studies showing a Pro-Dem bias, you simply would never believe it anyway. You simply don't have the objectivity to go against anything Democratic and/or left wing based.

Size's comments were right on the money with you.

THe difference is I believe FOX is Pro-conservative. The rest are Pro-Dem. I tihnk both parties are equally corrupt. Thats looking at it from both sides something you are incapable of doing.

Its ok for Stubbs because its true love....that it the funniest thing I have EVER heard for defending a pedophile. Unbelievable.