Study from CMPA in regards to media

[size]

I was reading this study and thought some of you may find it interesting in regards to media bias.
Here is a link to the PDF:
Study
More on the methodology can be found at cmpa.com

Major Finding:
In regards to nightly news coverage, 77% of it is good press for Democrats compared to only 12% of good press for Republicans. This is new coverage from Sept. 5 to Oct. 22 regarding election stories.

 

[bioman]

Might be because the dems are purposely laying low and letting the reps "enjoy" the spotlight. While I think both parties are equally corrupt, since the reps enjoy the majority their foibles make for more sensational news and thus get more coverage.

I do not belive in a "liberal media conspiracy" rather they are just sharks after the bloodiest morsels they can find. They certainly did not give Clinton a pass and that should be remembered.

 

[The Colonel 333]

Sept- Oct. Well that does not suprise me at all considering there are over a dozen Repuplicans currently being investigated for corruption. Not to mention the Mark Foley scandal and all the Republicans who are starting to point the finger at each other about who knew what when. I personally think they have been making there bed (for quite a while) and now it's time to lie in it.

 

[size]

To me, this is surprising. A 77% positive compared to a 12% positive is a vast difference. One could make a case that there are more easy targets on one side than the other but it should not be so statistically different.
In research and reporting, if one begins with the decision or outcome or result already formulated before actions are taken, then one can manipulate samples or information to support the desired results. This seems to be the case to me in much of reporting.

 

[bioman]

The PEW Research guys put out a report back in 2000 that showed that Bush recieved far more favorable coverage than Gore.

May be something, may be nothing. I tend to think the media sides with whomever is more popular at the moment. The reps were back in 2000, and now in 2006 they have pee'd in their own well and provided the media with almost nonstop fodder...some of which has to be orchestrated by Dem operative because the timing of many of these scandals are just too perfect..but nonetheless..more fodder.

 

[size]

May be something, may be nothing. I tend to think the media sides with whomever is more popular at the moment.

Could be the case, but again, is this what news/reporting should be for? Or should it be for reporting information as information is?

 

[klugman]

Might be because the dems are purposely laying low and letting the reps "enjoy" the spotlight. While I think both parties are equally corrupt, since the reps enjoy the majority their foibles make for more sensational news and thus get more coverage.

I do not belive in a "liberal media conspiracy" rather they are just sharks after the bloodiest morsels they can find. They certainly did not give Clinton a pass and that should be remembered.

Well they gave Kennedy a pass. I mean, he drowned a woman and he is still a Senator???

Let me guess...you define this a a very, very late term abortion...right?

 

[bioman]

If you think it's up to "them" to give people a "pass" then you are missing the point of living in a democratic republic, but don't let reality spoil your Limbaugh-esque talking points for you.

 

[klugman]

If you think it's up to "them" to give people a "pass" then you are missing the point of living in a democratic republic, but don't let reality spoil your Limbaugh-esque talking points for you.

The media are supposed to be watchdogs of government.

Not selectively pick and choose whose career they destroy.

A woman was murdered and the white, liberal media never reported it that way.

Maybe if you spent a little less time worshipping crystals, Earth goddess gia and Oprah and a little more time in a civics 101 class you'd get it.

Its guys like you (who think they're so educated and NUANCED) that b!tch about Fox News and somehow manages to ignore the blatant bias of CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, New York Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, etc.

 

[bioman]

Could be the case, but again, is this what news/reporting should be for? Or should it be for reporting information as information is?

well, that's the point..they report on who's making news. The Dems are likely laying low on purpose. They are not innocent, but savvy enough to stay as quiet as they can (ecept for doofus Kerry) while the Reps flail on and on.

 

[bioman]

The media are supposed to be watchdogs of government.

Not selectively pick and choose whose career they destroy.

A woman was murdered and the white, liberal media never reported it that way.

Maybe if you spent a little less time worshipping crystals, Earth goddess gia and Oprah and a little more time in a civics 101 class you'd get it.

Its guys like you (who think they're so educated and NUANCED) that b!tch about Fox News and somehow manages to ignore the blatant bias of CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, New York Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, etc.

It doesn't take a crystal to see that you are an angry little fella. Maybe some Dong Quai would alleviate those PMS symtoms.

Fox, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter all selectively attack people with the intent of discrediting them. While the other stations you ranted on about are the equivalent of News for Dummies, it takes little effort to find more salient information. Most lightly sip the Kool-aide offered by either side, but you appear to have taken a bath in it.

Your rants are culmination of talking point buzzwords offered up by the pundits manufactured by the White House..that much is plain to see. I suppose you give a "Pass" to the current administration simply because they share in your hatred and anger towards the cultural and ideaological diversity this country houses? So be it, but I find what this administration has done to true conservatism to be inexcusable.

No one has tried to alter the Constitution more than they have. No one has been as fiscally irresponsible as they have. No one uses the mantra of "Support the Troops" more than them while they actively ignore the generals in the field. THIS should make you angry because these are the people in charge right now..but hey, go dredge the Chappaquiddic for more hookers if you want.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

It doesnt take a crystal ball to see the media is completely left wing biased either. Comparing 3 people to 90% of the news media is a stretch to. Fox doens't show snipers killing soldiers. Fox doens't make deals with Saddam to stay in the country to get exculsive coverage. Fox doens't report forged and fake documents as truth (Dan Rather anyone?). Fox commentators are more conservative but don't go about actively trying to discredit an entire administration and party at the expense of soldiers lives unless you deem a snper killing a US soldier news worth to show. Nothing better to get the point across than showing your soldiers getting blown away.

The people bathing in the Kool-Aide are primarily liberal news orginizations.

Your "point buzzwords" just got the Democratic party elected.

It goes to show you, these days you don't even need a solution or plan to get elected, just complain enough, distort the fact enough and you can get elected.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

No one has tried to alter the Constitution more than they have.

I didn't know the Constitution applied to foreign citizens.

No one has been as fiscally irresponsible as they have.

The proposed budget of the Democratic Party when elected to Congress is higher than the previous Republican Congress but you won't hear that above the complaints and call for peoples heads in the media.

The people just voted a party in that wants more government, not less.

No one uses the mantra of "Support the Troops" more than them while they actively ignore the generals in the field. THIS should make you angry because these are the people in charge right now..but hey, go dredge the Chappaquiddic for more hookers if you want.

A bit misleading as the military and civilian leadership doesn't exactly get along no matter who is in power. 1946 the Democratic Congress was swept out of office for a new Republican one because the American public were sick of the war. A war they won.

Civilian leaders and the military will never get along and never agree. One wants political correctness, the other could care less. Its a situation in which in this day and age you can't win. Either way, even if you win the physical war, you will be wrong in the media.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

well, that's the point..they report on who's making news. The Dems are likely laying low on purpose. They are not innocent, but savvy enough to stay as quiet as they can (ecept for doofus Kerry) while the Reps flail on and on.

Jack Murtha, Bob Menendez, Jane Harman, William Jefferson, and Alan Mollohan are all under investigation for corruption so they aren't laying low at all. You just don't hear about it nearly as much.

 

[CDB]

Media bias is issue specific anyway, not necessarily candidate specific. If news organizations saw better ratings from jumping on Democrats they likely would. Likely enough people are pissed or befuddled enough with the Republicans that they are more responsive to negative stories about them than Democrats. But, you will not see a news organization telling you a school shooting was stopped by an armed citizen, as an example of issue bias. Report on the evil use of guns, not the postive use.

All media is biased. News without bias would be a ticker of basic facts: two people aged 17 and 16 shot today by another person aged 16... Senator X casts vote for legislation Y... etc. etc. If you don't want the ticker then all news has to be to some extent analysis and contextual, and that means there will always be a bias despite the best efforts of some to be objective. Best to just admit this and deal with it instead of throwing up some BS story about objectivity.

It would also do us well to remember that way back in the golden days of journalism, if they ever existed, at the turn of the century when reporters were hard boiled individuals who asked hard questions and did their best to get straight answers, news organizations were more biased than they are now and open about it. Editorial pages in papers would proudly proclaim support for this candidate and hostility toward the others. Reporters did not hide their political ideas like Victorian gentleman hiding their dirty books and sex toys. They were out there in the open for everyone to see. A much more honest time if the history I learned way back when about this era was true. It's easier to debate someone and respect them while still disagreeing with them if you at least know where they're coming from. But if someone hides behind a veil of bull**** called 'objectivity' to my mind at least they lose a lot of credibility.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I agree, but back then most of the 'opinion' was limited to just the editorial. Now, the whole news seems like one big editorial because now its deemed more entertaintment than actual news. When you compare many of the primary docs vs. the news it wans't that far off. I can't imagine what today would like like if you examined it 50 years from now.

Katie Couric as a news anchor?

That tells you right there which is more important, accuracy and credibility, or ratings.

 

[CDB]

I agree, but back then most of the 'opinion' was limited to just the editorial. Now, the whole news seems like one big editorial because now its deemed more entertaintment than actual news.

Katie Couric as a news anchor?

That tells you right there which is more important, accuracy and credibility, or ratings.

True. But in the end what would you rather watch: some old guy reading facts off a teleprompter or porn? It's the same choice on TV, just watered down, and the media execs know porn will bring more people in.

I'd be the first to admit, I like my news with bias. It makes it more interesting and helps you sharpen your world view when you're listening to news from a source biased against your tendencies. In fact I think it's easier for me to pick out the bull**** in media with leftist bias than media that has a Libertarian bias. I'm more likely to get sucked in by the latter. Present me with the former and I'm more likely to do what I should do on all cases and take it with a grain of salt. I think we need more bias in media.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

True. But in the end what would you rather watch: some old guy reading facts off a teleprompter or porn? It's the same choice on TV, just watered down, and the media execs know porn will bring more people in.

I'd be the first to admit, I like my news with bias. It makes it more interesting and helps you sharpen your world view when you're listening to news from a source biased against your tendencies. In fact I think it's easier for me to pick out the bull**** in media with leftist bias than media that has a Libertarian bias. I'm more likely to get sucked in by the latter. Present me with the former and I'm more likely to do what I should do on all cases and take it with a grain of salt. I think we need more bias in media.

Yes but there is difference between bias and an outright refusal to report or include most of the facts. I don't mind a bias of opinion, but a bias in which the actual content is refused, acknowledged, or pushed aside is the problem.

 

[CDB]

Yes but there is difference between bias and an outright refusal to report or include most of the facts. I don't mind a bias of opinion, but a bias in which the actual content is refused, acknowledged, or pushed aside is the problem.

True, but then you need a source with a different bias to call them on their omissions which there will always be.

 

[bioman]

"Fox commentators are more conservative but don't go about actively trying to discredit an entire administration and party at the expense of soldiers lives unless you deem a snper killing a US soldier news worth to show."

No, they have not done so...Yet. Their bias is one you happen to agree with.."patriotic" support of the govt in this war. Now that the Congress has changed, we will see just how patriotic and unquestioning they remain when the majority no longer supports their agenda. They too, pick and choose what they will and will not report on..ie, let's not talk about the soldiers who were killed unless it's some uber-patriotic fabrication like the Pat Tillman story.

I suppose the question comes down to how do you prefer to be lied to? In a pessimistic manner or an overly optimistic one? ie Iraq is a quagmire or Iraq is going "swimmingly".

There certain IS bias in the media, but as I alluded to, it has less to do with Liberalism or any forced movement to have a shadowy network of liberals control the airwaves as it does with sensationalism. Showing the war in a negative light wins them more ratings than simply reporting on what happened in an unbiased manner. Those days are unfortunately over.

FOX initially drew a big following by depicting the conservatives, then later the war in Iraq in a glowing light. This strategy however, seems to be failing as FOX ratings have been sinking and overall opinion about Iraq worsens. Is that the fault of the "liberal" media or is it simply reality catching up to the situation?

Military and civilian leadership never do see eye to eye, I agree. However there have been few instance where a shocking number of high ranking generals come forward and direct their ire at the Sec of Defense and paint a dismal picture of the situation on the ground. That is not an indictment of the media nor can liberals in any way be involved in the inner Defense Department circles.

There are more than a few assumptions going on here about where and how I get my news. The fact that I fail to see a massive liberal media conspiracy is not indicative of being beholden to the far left as Kluggo would like you to believe.

 

[CDB]

No, they have not done so...Yet. Their bias is one you happen to agree with.."patriotic" support of the govt in this war. Now that the Congress has changed, we will see just how patriotic and unquestioning they remain when the majority no longer supports their agenda. They too, pick and choose what they will and will not report on..ie, let's not talk about the soldiers who were killed unless it's some uber-patriotic fabrication like the Pat Tillman story.

I've actually been watching the news lately because of the election (usually I prefer the internet) and I've heard Fox reporters and commentators repeatedly tick off the death toll in Iraq, both for soldiers and civilians.

There certain IS bias in the media, but as I alluded to, it has less to do with Liberalism or any forced movement to have a shadowy network of liberals control the airwaves as it does with sensationalism. Showing the war in a negative light wins them more ratings than simply reporting on what happened in an unbiased manner. Those days are unfortunately over.

I don't know about Bobo, but I never assumed any shadowy network to exist. Just that the majority of people in the media are Democrat/liberal, which I believe has been demonstrated time and again, and that over time this will lead to an echo chamber/bias effect because all most people do in the end is hang out with people who are more or less like themselves. Over time this means they will present a story a certain way thinking it's objective and middle of the road, assuming some things are just understood when in fact they can be questioned.

There are more than a few assumptions going on here about where and how I get my news. The fact that I fail to see a massive liberal media conspiracy is not indicative of being beholden to the far left as Kluggo would like you to believe.

Maybe your characterization of it as a conspiracy is off? I think the media is largely liberal and has a liberal bias. I don't think there's a cabal of liberals making this happen though. It's just the way the cookie crumbled for whatever reason.

 

[bioman]

Truth in all of that, however look at the reverse..once the White House went to Bush, the nature of the Press's relationship with the WH changed dramatically. There was a concerted effort to shut out reporters who were not team players. For better or worse, this will change how things get reported. Lack of open discourse leads to suspicion and this can slant coverage. Had this been a more open administration..perhaps things would be different but they chose to hide behind screeners and talking points and IMO, the public wants more than that and began to distrust the govt more than usual.

The predisposition for journalists to be Dems or "liberal" which is getting to be a far too nebulous term these days, may be simply because of where the major news outlets are situated..in the big cities and IMIO, it just represents the demographic there.

The question is, if a news outlet formed in the "Heartland" and was run by some ideological midwestern centrist with populist leanings..would anyone watch it? In this day and age, I doubt it. I would, but then that is my background.

Most basic, bread and butter reporting of the events of the day...McNiel-Lehrer Hour. Dry as toast and I hope it never changes.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

"Fox commentators are more conservative but don't go about actively trying to discredit an entire administration and party at the expense of soldiers lives unless you deem a snper killing a US soldier news worth to show."

No, they have not done so...Yet. Their bias is one you happen to agree with.."patriotic" support of the govt in this war. Now that the Congress has changed, we will see just how patriotic and unquestioning they remain when the majority no longer supports their agenda. They too, pick and choose what they will and will not report on..ie, let's not talk about the soldiers who were killed unless it's some uber-patriotic fabrication like the Pat Tillman story.

Do you watch Fox because they report the violence and deaths on a daily basis. Seriously, with a comment like that you would think you don't even watch. For every Hannity, there is a Colmes. Its not Keith Olberman bashing Bush or Oreilly every night without one conservative on the show.

I suppose the question comes down to how do you prefer to be lied to? In a pessimistic manner or an overly optimistic one? ie Iraq is a quagmire or Iraq is going "swimmingly".

Once again, they report the death toll every day and routinely criticize the Bush administration. As for being lied too, ask Dan Rather. Even the Beltway boys who are overly conservative think the war isn't going well.

There certain IS bias in the media, but as I alluded to, it has less to do with Liberalism or any forced movement to have a shadowy network of liberals control the airwaves as it does with sensationalism. Showing the war in a negative light wins them more ratings than simply reporting on what happened in an unbiased manner. Those days are unfortunately over.

They aren't shadowy at all. They admit it freely.

FOX initially drew a big following by depicting the conservatives, then later the war in Iraq in a glowing light. This strategy however, seems to be failing as FOX ratings have been sinking and overall opinion about Iraq worsens. Is that the fault of the "liberal" media or is it simply reality catching up to the situation?

FOX drew a big following because they filled an enormous gap that wasn't present until cable news came around. Before cable news you have the big 3 which are left leaning.

Actually, all news outlets are showing a drop in ratings, not just FOX.

Air America is bankrupt, the New York Times stock is plummeting. Does that mean conservatives are winning? No, it means that all news outlets are not doing as well as they once did.

Military and civilian leadership never do see eye to eye, I agree. However there have been few instance where a shocking number of high ranking generals come forward and direct their ire at the Sec of Defense and paint a dismal picture of the situation on the ground. That is not an indictment of the media nor can liberals in any way be involved in the inner Defense Department circles.

Its not shocking at all. In fact, its nothing compared to Vietnam, Korea or WW2. Do you remember what they did to Robert Mcnamara?The difference is we have 10x the new outlets, cable stations and media adding their 2 cents in and the majority of them are left wing. I don't care how strong you are, when 90% of the media beat down on you for 4 years the opinion isn't going to be rosy.

There are more than a few assumptions going on here about where and how I get my news. The fact that I fail to see a massive liberal media conspiracy is not indicative of being beholden to the far left as Kluggo would like you to believe.

I don't really care about how you get your news. It doesnt matter to me. Its not some conspiracy because Soros, Ted Turner and everyone opposite of Rupert Murdoch makes their feelings known.

The largest media markets are left wing leaning. (New York, Boston, Chicago, LA, Philly). Its not a very large leap of faith that their papers and the media (since 99% is based on NY and LA) are going to pander to their audience. Its not a leap of faith to guess that FOX became so large because they filled and enormous gap within the media.

Just look at the geographical locations of who won and lost last night and the patterns are pretty distinctive.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

The question is, if a news outlet formed in the "Heartland" and was run by some ideological midwestern centrist with populist leanings..would anyone watch it? In this day and age, I doubt it. I would, but then that is my background.

John Kasich has a program called "Heartland" on FOX.

People of the heartland watch FOX. The heartland is generally conservative. The mainstream media is not so therefore they made FOX news the number 1 rated cable news show. Its pretty clear cut to me.

 

[Number 5]

Jack Murtha, Bob Menendez, Jane Harman, William Jefferson, and Alan Mollohan are all under investigation for corruption so they aren't laying low at all. You just don't hear about it nearly as much.

Jack Murtha is under investigation? Care to back that up? What about Menendez? Harman I know about (was any evidence of wrongdoing found?). As for Mollohan and Jefferson, Nancy Pelosi asked them to step down from their committee assignments for the duration of the investigations. Mollohan did, but Jefferson refused so the Democrats voted to strip him of his assignments soon after.

Jefferson is now in a run off election because the Democrats fielded and endorsed another candidate to run against him in the elections. Contrast this with the Republicans who always try to cover for their corrupt members. It was the cover up and lies by prominent Republicans that kept the Foley story in the news so long. Also, they completed the investigation into the Foley affair, but have refused to release the results because of the midterm elections.

Anyway, I don't believe there's a pro-Dem bias in the mainstream media. The coverage may have been worse for the Republicans in the last few months because legitimate news events were worse for them. And the media certainly didn't have a problem spending 2 days covering Kerry's botched joke as if that was somehow important news.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Jack Murtha is under investigation? Care to back that up? What about Menendez? Harman I know about (was any evidence of wrongdoing found?). As for Mollohan and Jefferson, Nancy Pelosi asked them to step down from their committee assignments for the duration of the investigations. Mollohan did, but Jefferson refused so the Democrats voted to strip him of his assignments soon after.


Jefferson is now in a run off election because the Democrats fielded and endorsed another candidate to run against him in the elections. Contrast this with the Republicans who always try to cover for their corrupt members. It was the cover up and lies by prominent Republicans that kept the Foley story in the news so long. Also, they completed the investigation into the Foley affair, but have refused to release the results because of the midterm elections.

Anyway, I don't believe there's a pro-Dem bias in the mainstream media. The coverage may have been worse for the Republicans in the last few months because legitimate news events were worse for them. And the media certainly didn't have a problem spending 2 days covering Kerry's botched joke as if that was somehow important news.

"Last June, the Los Angeles Times reported how the ranking member on the defense appropriations subcommittee has a brother, Robert Murtha, whose lobbying firm represents 10 companies that received more than $20 million from last year's defense spending bill. "Clients of the lobbying firm KSA Consulting -- whose top officials also include former congressional aide Carmen V. Scialabba, who worked for Rep. Murtha as a congressional aide for 27 years -- received a total of $20.8 million from the bill," the L.A. Times reported.
In early 2004, according to Roll Call, Mr. Murtha "reportedly leaned on U.S. Navy officials to sign a contract to transfer the Hunters Point Shipyard to the city of San Francisco." Laurence Pelosi, nephew of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, at the time was an executive of the company which owned the rights to the land. The same article also reported how Mr. Murtha has been behind millions of dollars worth of earmarks in defense appropriations bills that went to companies owned by the children of fellow Pennsylvania Democrat, Rep. Paul Kanjorski. Meanwhile, the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign-finance watchdog group, lists Mr. Murtha as the top recipient of defense industry dollars in the current 2006 election cycle. "

Thats Murtha. Plus he had a history with his involvment in the Abscam investigation years ago.


"A federal investigation has been launched into the financial dealings of New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez and a nonprofit agency he has helped over the years, sources said.

The U.S. attorney's office has subpoenaed the agency's records pertaining to a house once owned by then-congressman Menendez, sources told NewsChannel 4's Brian Thompson.

Menendez, a Democrat, has denied there was anything wrong with his renting the house to the North Hudson Community Action Corp. for more than $3,000 a month, even as he was working to obtain millions of dollars in federal grant money while he was a congressman."

Thats Menendez.

Yes, the big coverup of Mark Foley.

Maybe instead of giving Foley the boot people can re-elect him like they did with Democrat Gerry Stubbs who actually DID have sex with a male page. What did the Democrats do with Gerr Stubbs? They censored him then gave him chairmanship and a standing ovation.

You can find corruption on both ends.

Of course you don't think there is a pro-dem bias, thats pretty clear. Yeah, they had a problem with Kerry's whole 2 days compared to Foley's 2 weeks. Of course you didn't know about Murtha because you will never hear that in the news. Most people don't even know about Jefferson and his 90k in cash sitting in his freezer. Why? Its not reported more than a day. There is no bias.

 

[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.

 

[Number 5]

"A federal investigation has been launched into the financial dealings of New Jersey Sen. Robert Menendez and a nonprofit agency he has helped over the years, sources said.

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.

Yes, the big coverup of Mark Foley.

Maybe instead of giving Foley the boot people can re-elect him like they did with Democrat Gerry Stubbs who actually DID have sex with a male page. What did the Democrats do with Gerr Stubbs? They censored him then gave him chairmanship and a standing ovation.

You can find corruption on both ends.

Of course you don't think there is a pro-dem bias, thats pretty clear. Yeah, they had a problem with Kerry's whole 2 days compared to Foley's 2 weeks. Of course you didn't know about Murtha because you will never hear that in the news. Most people don't even know about Jefferson and his 90k in cash sitting in his freezer. Why? Its not reported more than a day. There is no bias.

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.

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.

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?

 

[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).

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

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?

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?

No, people like bioman are what Lenin called “useful idiots.” Or worse, he has no core beliefs and just thinks that advocating hard left, anti-American diatribes that he paraphrases from the Daily Kos or moveon.org will somehow benefit his petty, twisted ambitions.

 

[warnerve]

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.

robert menendez investigation - Google Search

I only follow politics rather casually, and by no means consider myself an expert. However, in my experience, the notion that there is no liberal media bias is absurd. I certainly hold Bush in a lower regard than I did a few years ago, but I have never seen anyone take a beating in the public eye that could compare to what he is subjected to. I was reading a semi-recent copy of Newsweek at the gym the other day, and there was an article about the situation with North Korea. If someone who had no idea what was going on in current events read this article, he/she would believe that Kim Jong il is a lovable, quirky eccentric whose only downfall is his insecurities. And if you have read Newsweek before, I don't even need to tell you how Bush was portrayed.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

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?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

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]

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.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

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]

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.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

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.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

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?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

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.

 

[CDB]

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.

They got more air time. How were they treated as compared to liberal guests? Were they identified as conservatives and/or Republicans? Were liberals identified as liberals, or just by name? Etc., etc. There's more to bias than who gets air time. One of my favorite forms of bias is when someone comes on from this or that foundation and is asked their opinion but never once are the ideological leanings of their employers mentioned. Liberal and conservative media outlets do this. Liberals will have someone on from NOW even though they're a hair left of MArx and not mention it, conservatives put the Herritage Foundation up and rarely note they're just a bit to the right in their leanings.

Plus if you read the article you'll see that the majority of it covers a time when Republicans controlled both the legislative and the executive branches of the government. It's hardly a surprise more of them showed up on TV as there were more of them in power at the time. Oh, and I love this quote: "Congressional opponents of the Iraq war were largely absent from the Sunday shows, particularly during the period just before the war began." The whole study is about conservative vs liberal, Republican vs Democrat air time and now we learn that congressional opponents of the war were absent from the media. I wonder, would the sudden shift in vocabulary serve to gloss over the fact that many of those war supporters were elected Democrats? And of course by limiting the quote to cover congressional opponents one needn't bother tallying the noncongressional war opponents, many of whom were liberal but some conservative as well, that did appear on air. One has to wonder...

Plus the study covers Sunday talk shows exclusively it seems. There are six other 24 hour news cycles during the week.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Seems 5 loves this particular debate.

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/politics/25898-conservative-media-bias.html

 

[size]

Seems 5 loves this particular debate.

http://anabolicminds.com/forum/politics/25898-conservative-media-bias.html

The linked thread was in response to a study that I posted. I was just getting ready to link it as well.

 

[Number 5]

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.

Yeah, the study doesnt show anything

The study was basically one data point. The bad press could be either because legitimate news events were unfavorable to the Repubs, or because of liberal bias, or some combination thereof. If it's one of the latter two then someone should be able to find a pattern of similar results across all elections in the past 50 years say.

As for the book, either present some arguments from it or drop it. There are books on both sides making opposing points and just quoting a title is meaningless.

..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.

You know Bobo, you are starting to sound a bit repetitive here. Why don't you just stick to serious arguments instead empty accusations like "its obvious what you choose to believe no matter what evidence"?

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

Lieberman famously said: ""It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."

Those are fighting words for a lot of Dems. What do you think the GOP reaction would have been if McCain, for example, had told his fellow Republicans to shut up already on criticizing Clinton's foreign policies with which they disagreed?

And how can you change a failed policy unless you take a stand against it?

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?

Until the primary he kept touting all the "progress" that was being made in Iraq as if Bush's stay the course approach was working. In a WSJ op-ed, Our Troops Must Stay, Lieberman talks about all the "visible and practical" progess Iraq is making because of "more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing." The truth is the Iraqi economy is in shambles and Lieberman was just spinning it until it became too embarrassing during the primary because it made him appear completely out of touch with reality.

 

[Number 5]

They got more air time. How were they treated as compared to liberal guests? Were they identified as conservatives and/or Republicans? Were liberals identified as liberals, or just by name? Etc., etc. There's more to bias than who gets air time. One of my favorite forms of bias is when someone comes on from this or that foundation and is asked their opinion but never once are the ideological leanings of their employers mentioned. Liberal and conservative media outlets do this. Liberals will have someone on from NOW even though they're a hair left of MArx and not mention it, conservatives put the Herritage Foundation up and rarely note they're just a bit to the right in their leanings.

I don't know how conservatives and liberals were identified, but party affiliate is usually always announced or included in a name tag at the bottom of the screen. Also in print media liberal legislators, actors and other personalties are more often identified as liberal than their conservative counterparts. You can read the American Prospect piece I linked to earlier for the details.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

You know Bobo, you are starting to sound a bit repetitive here. Why don't you just stick to serious arguments instead empty accusations like "its obvious what you choose to believe no matter what evidence"?

What serious argument? You can't prove an opinion. You can state studies and books like the ones already stated then make your call. You could also watch the majority of the news programs and make your judgement. I watch them all and have already stated FOX is Pro-Conservative and the rest are Pro-Dem. I take an objective look, something you don't seem to be able to do. You completely slant and spin issues pro-democrat.

The problem is you aren't objective at all and many people have come to that conclusion in this thread as well as the other one. Its pointless debating with someone who is so biased that they can't be objective at all.

Lieberman famously said: ""It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril."

Those are fighting words for a lot of Dems. What do you think the GOP reaction would have been if McCain, for example, had told his fellow Republicans to shut up already on criticizing Clinton's foreign policies with which they disagreed?

Fighting words. Exactly. Don't EVER criticize the Democratic party or its "fighting words". Thank you for proving my point.

Don't ever go against the Dems or the wrath of the Moveon.org crowd will be your gift.

As for Clinton, who knows. Clinton was never President during wartime but we all know how he felt about using force in Iraq. That was before he changed his mind after the fact.

And how can you change a failed policy unless you take a stand against it?

Calling Bush a liar, loser, etc...isn't exactly criticizing policy.

This is the Democratic party line.

"Bush is a failure. The policy is a failure. We were against the war from the start even though we voted for it, but please don't ask us how we are going to solve the problem because we don't know."

Sprinkle in a few insults form the far left such as Bush is a murderer, Bush is Hitler, etc....and there you go.

Until the primary he kept touting all the "progress" that was being made in Iraq as if Bush's stay the course approach was working. In a WSJ op-ed, Our Troops Must Stay, Lieberman talks about all the "visible and practical" progess Iraq is making because of "more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing." The truth is the Iraqi economy is in shambles and Lieberman was just spinning it until it became too embarrassing during the primary because it made him appear completely out of touch with reality.

Ah, yes. Anyone claiming anything positive about Iraq is out of touch with reality. The liberal playbook....

Its kind of tough to appeal to the Moveon.org crowd if you say ANYTHING positive about Iraq.

The voters must think he is touch with some sort of reality since they re-elected him.

 

[CDB]

I don't know how conservatives and liberals were identified, but party affiliate is usually always announced or included in a name tag at the bottom of the screen. Also in print media liberal legislators, actors and other personalties are more often identified as liberal than their conservative counterparts. You can read the American Prospect piece I linked to earlier for the details.

Already did. For rebuttal:

"The only attempt to factually challenge Goldberg’s evidence has come from linguist Geoffrey Nunberg. “He [Goldberg] claims that the media pointedly identify conservative politicians as conservatives but rarely use the word ‘liberal’ to describe liberals. As Goldberg describes the difference, ‘In the world of the Jennings and Brokaws and Rathers, conservatives are out of the mainstream and have to be identified. Liberals, on the other hand, are the mainstream and don’t have to be identified,’” Nunberg correctly summarized on NPR’s Fresh Air on March 19. Then Nunberg claimed he’d proven otherwise — he plugged the names of prominent liberals and conservatives into a newspaper database and found “the average liberal legislator has a 30 percent greater likelihood of being identified with a partisan label than the average conservative does.” The liberal media embraced his results.

"But the claim that liberals are subjected to greater labeling doesn’t square with numerous studies the Media Research Center conducted in the 1980s and 1990s. These studies demonstrated that news stories identify right-leaning think tanks and groups as “conservative” much more often than left-leaning groups are called “liberal.” One example: the group Concerned Women for America is called conservative in 41 percent of stories while the National Organization for Women was tagged as liberal only two percent of the time. (For details, see previous studies.)

"Given the controversy, we checked to see if Goldberg’s observations about network news would be verified by a systematic analysis. MRC researchers used the Nexis database to discover each use of the word “liberal” and “conservative” on ABC’s World News Tonight, the CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News for five years, from January 1, 1997 through December 31, 2001. Each reference was examined to weed out duplicate cases or instances when the word was used in another context (such as “conservative crowd estimates” or “liberal arts colleges”). In addition, labels were eliminated if they were attributed to a news source rather than the network reporter. (See the complete description of the methodology.)

"Eventually, the 2,020 records found by the Nexis search engine were pared down to 924 records containing 1,239 bona fide reporter labels. The breakdown shows Goldberg was exactly right: reporters at ABC, CBS and NBC reached for the “conservative” tag four times more often than the “liberal” label to define politicians, interest groups and policy positions."
Media Research Center

What's more the same article points out that "Most of these labels were used to describe general groups, not (emphasis added) individuals." So researching on individuals is a nice way to hide this fact, now isn't it?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

I don't know how conservatives and liberals were identified, but party affiliate is usually always announced or included in a name tag at the bottom of the screen. Also in print media liberal legislators, actors and other personalties are more often identified as liberal than their conservative counterparts. You can read the American Prospect piece I linked to earlier for the details.

Right...the American Prospect...a very open minded publication.

"The American Prospect was founded in 1990 as an authoritative magazine of liberal ideas, committed to a just society, an enriched democracy, and effective liberal politics. Robert Kuttner, Robert Reich, and Paul Starr launched the magazine initially as a quarterly.

Our mission, simply put, is to rise to the momentous occasion that confronts all Americans who seek a just society built on our greatest traditions. Contemporary conservatism stands to thwart those traditions; it advances its agenda by way of stealth, fear-mongering, and a massive propaganda apparatus. It is our mission to expose that agenda and the lies that support it."

Even mediamatters is labeled liberal by your Wikipedia

Liberal point of view

* Media Matters for America - site claiming to expose conservative bias


Way to be open minded