The Battle Against Liberal Bias

[Foamy Dog]

Sorry about that.

The word filter is sometimes a bit over sensitive.

It should be fixed now. ;D

--FD

[Dixie Pool]

Thank God for Rush, Gordon and Sean. Where would we be if we didn't have talk radio?
Where? We'd have Hillary aka Evita, and her consort cannonized before their time.
Watching CNN and Judy W. and Wolf B. is probably the biggest sham on TV.
God Bless Rush and the rest of the conservatives on talk radio because God knows we don't have TV except for Fox

[Martin]

Try to deny liberal bias after reading this page...

www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp

Hint: You don't learn anything if you don't read it because you're afraid to see the truth, or if you are too disgusted by the truth to want to finish it.

By the way... See that section down by the very bottom? Those are talking heads TEXTadmittingTEXT there TEXTisTEXT a liberal bias in the media!

[StillMe]

Perhaps the US media is left leaning. Is that why the right wing like to take the US into pointless wars? During war time, there is very little contestation from US media.

CNN has been doubed (world wide) the Bush network.

For more on this, check out eventsquarterly.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=a

[ASH]

[e-mail] said:

What a crock.  Liberal media?  Conservatives only think there's a liberal media because the ' very *friendly* person' reporters who work for the corporate news establishment have been telling their reporters to complain about the 'liberal' bias.

Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Tony Snow, Wolf Blitzer, Rush, George Will, the list is long and ugly.

The viciously conservative pundits of television, radio, and print easily outnumber the liberals 3 to 1, or more.

If you put the moderate conservatives with the liberals, they would still be outnumbered by the rabid far-right.

It's so obvious that it's reached the point of alarm.

Right wing media is turning America into a Neo-Nazi paradise.

[Foamy Dog]

That has to be one of the funiest things I have ever read!

Don't think the media is slanted to the left? Just read "Bias" (written by Bernard Goldberg, an admitted liberal.)

FD

[Desarollo]

the liberals and the conservatives make me laugh...ive seen both sides, ive had lengthy discussion from both sides showing how the media is sckewd to the others position...ur both very counterproductive and i could show u "evidence" how the media is sckewed to the right...i would say that the media has mostly journalists who are left leaning and executives who are for the right...the govt puts pressures on a lot that goes threw but not all...the media goes everywhich way and conservatives do have fox which is the leading news network so what are u complaining about?

[Anne Eliot]

These messages seem to say the same thing, yes, of course the media slants things, after all, they are people and it is nearly impossible to tell the truth as a person. What is the truth and is what you preceive to be the truth actually so? Sounds kind of funny to me. In order to tell the whole truth, you would have to see things from everyone's point of veiw, from the uttlely narrowminded to the openess of God. How many of you can do that?
I am not saying however that the media could not have done a better job, they could have tried harder, but at the peril of their own life and others. The thing about the truth is, you will never get the whole "truth" no matter how good of a reporter you are. So yes, there is liberal bias in the news and everywhere you go though as for it directly focused on makeing us "zombies" and "neo-nazis"? No, and if you actually beleive that this bias was as simple as that, you really do make me laugh.
The idea of the American has grown over romantic over the years and now people are beginning to realize that the picture and the actual photograph don't exactly look the same.
The thing is, government has almost had to change things about the picture because people could not deal with the portion of the picture we have. If you ask me, there are some things the media and Bush should have left buried. Let's take the war on terrorism for instance, that was almost compleatly stupid to tell us this. Yes something should have been done about the towers, but as for broadcasting to the entire world? Idiotic. Not only did it put people's guard's up, make people feel America is trying to be emperialistic, and cause all the protest when they could have instead worked to accomplish their goals, but it also placed a target sign on all our foreheads that reads "bomb me". There are just some things that the masses should not know for the better of the people. If you don't beleive me, go home and tell your three year old daughter that there is no Santa Clause. You may say that you are far from three years old, but you'll have to agree that our civilization is not ready to know all things in the universe and because Bush has told us that one truth, he has had to tell a thousand lies for it.
Now the question arises of where you draw the line. You have to tell the people somthing, yeah, that's another one of the human things. Sometimes you loose sight of what you're supposed to be doing. Sorta like what has happened with, um, everyone? Oh yeah, while we're on the subject, Hussien is a person too. You may not have killed your own people but chances are you've never had nearly limitless power either. If you can't handle the simple truth that power corrupts, if you are still so biased as to believe that because someone seems evil that they are not human and multi-dimensional then why in Heaven, Earth, and Hell are you complaining about liberal bias?
If you're still so bent on knowing the truth, then here's something that applies in this world: Nothing is compleatly black, nor is something ever compleatly white, chances are, if you took time to look, you would see the shades of grey.

[Desarollo]

well said...we are all humans, some are slightly misguided, others more so (hussein), but we need to understand that and not resort to blind hatred but instead act by calculated moral actions

[garrett7855]

:oNO Liberal Bias? PUHLEEEAASSE??? Have you ever actually listened to NPR? CBS? NBC? ABC? CNN? CNBC? MSNBC? The only TELEVISION outlet I'm aware of the even attempts balance (admittedly with a conservative slant-by their OWN admission) is FOX.

Thank God the radio industry depends on listenership to define their programming. The radio is heavily conservative for a reason, folks. Conservatism SELLS!

Radio stations don't program conservative talk hosts out of the goodness of their hearts. They program the shows that make them wealthier.

Is this greedy? Sure it is. Is it good business? Must be. I don't hear about too many radio executives collecting welfare and food stamps. And as far as I can tell, most of their employees seem to make at least comfortable livings (although I'd imagine there are exceptions there, just like in any other walk of life.

So why would the visual media not cash in on the same cash cow? ?

The answer is far to complex to go into here--I could write 20 volumes on the subject and and all the "simple"
people would never be able to follow me.--just kidding!

As I see it the answer is actually really simple--In video media outlets, liberalism sells. Television execs are just as greedy as any other execs, and their demographics show that their viewers like their news in little feel-good bytes and big don't you feel sorry for these poor unfortunates news pieces.

People who get their news from TV generally are the so-called "mind-numbed robots" that conservative radio listeners are presumed to be, while radio listeners tend to actually listen to what's being said and tend to dig a little deeper for the facts.

This is why NPR is consistently the lowest rated programming during "sweeps", and the reason they only stay on the air because of government grants and huge corporate grants. The amount of money they recieve from "listener contributions" is substantial, but miniscule in comparison to their grants.

Whether you like it or not, industry in this country is driven by the dollar, and the media outlets are a part of industry. They will inevetibly follow the money.

Want to change their bias? It's really not that complex. All you have to do is actually pay attention! And then make sure the outlet, no matter if it's TV, radio or print,
hears what you think. If you have access to this site, you have access to theirs--they have people who read the e-mail they recieve, and if you communicate your desires in a reasonable manner, i.e. make sure they know their advertising dollars are working, they will most assuredly listen.

Never forget-greed will out!

[garrett7855]

Anne Elliot: I just re-read what you said, or at least I tried to follow it. You have made quite a few allegations with little or nothing to back them up.
I don't mean to be critical, well actually, I suppose I do, but I must say that was one of the best worded, while at the same time totally meaningless rants I've seen on here!
Congratulations on being able to create the appearance of making a point, when there is no point to your arguement at all.
Are you REALLY Anne Elliot, or are you Anne Richards in disguise?

[Sentinel]

[e-mail] said:

What a crock.  Liberal media?  Conservatives only think there's a liberal media because the ' very *friendly* person' reporters who work for the corporate news establishment have been telling their reporters to complain about the 'liberal' bias.

Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Tony Snow, Wolf Blitzer, Rush, George Will, the list is long and ugly.

If this is the liberals evidence of a right-wing bias, it's mighty weak. They are all commentators who are mostly relegated to the media ghetto (AM radio, Fox News, and in the shadow of the liberal Op Ed article and liberal commentators on the Opinion page).

Most of them aren't that conservative (i.e. they're mostly neocons). Fox News would fire a true conservative as fast as CNN would.

When was the last time you saw a prime-time TV show on ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, or UPN take the position that homosexuals are perverts or that Evolution is false?

[expat]

Perhaps the reason the major networks don't call homosexual perverts or that evolution false is simply because these are extreme viewpoints unrepresentative of what most people think. It may be that you are out of touch with majority opinion, no matter how strongly you believe in what you do. Of course you have the right to believe whatever you want, but in both these instances there would be an outrage and massive protest should these networks cite either of your beliefs as fact. Even without getting into the validity of either claim, the networks do not want the controversy.

I live in Europe and via satellite TV can follow the TV news of most Western Nations (the Romance and Germanic languages in any case, the Eastern European languages are another matter.) Believe me, in comparison to Europe and Canada, the US media are considerably more conservative than anything here, even Bellesconi's Italian channels. The only thing the US media is to the left of are programs like Limbaugh’s and other similar ones. If they are your personal standard of what is fair and balanced, then of course the networks seem too liberal. If your standard is NPR, then the networks seem to have a conservative bias. These labels only make sense relative to where one stands. It all depends on whose Gore is getting oxed.

Aunt Whoever, in her posting on page 1 of this thread above made an excellent point: the TRUTH is never presented by any one side, but is rather derived by listening to the advocates of all sides. There have always been and always will be discussion of what is true, even when people can agree on the facts of a case. Truth is a matter of perception given one’s beliefs. Truth is whether or not something jives with your understanding of the world. To insist that there is only such understanding, your own, is a fool’s errand.

Be wary of anyone capitalizing the word "truth" and telling you that only his favorite has it right. All media has a slant, an agenda, a point of view. It is pretty damned immature to find this surprising or to believe that objectivity ever exists or ever has existed in the press. That debate was in full roar back in the 1960s, or even in the 1760s, and can even be found in Plato and Aristotle. or even in . The person calling this a non issue above pretty much has it pegged.

The only "bias" in the media is that its opinion lies to one side of one's own, whatever it is. Nor is the media a monolithic whole. The corporate media reflects the general opinion of large corporations. Big surprise. The alternative media ranges from radical right to radical left. This is news?

[Sentinel]

expat said:

Perhaps the reason the major networks don't call homosexual perverts or that evolution false is simply because these are extreme viewpoints unrepresentative of what most people think.

I don't think you live so deep in a cave that you could believe that BS. Half of Americans believe in both Creationism and that homosexuality is immoral. That dispite the 100% pro-homo, pro-evolution dogma from the media.

Now, why can't you show some backbone and admit that I have made a point? Besides, those two were exampes. Pick anything that has a clear liberal and conservative side.

I live in Europe

Yes, the European government is ahead of the American government when it comes to successful indoctrination.

The only thing the US media is to the left of are programs like Limbaugh’s and other similar ones.

Limbaugh avoids the two examples I gave above. And, he's only on AM radio. Being on AM radio is only one step above to posting on an internet BBS. It's not like a prime-time spot on a major network.

the TRUTH is never presented by any one side, but is rather derived by listening to the advocates of all sides.

That's true, the truth is found only by listening to both sides. There are sides of issues that the mainstream media never allows. Why's that, if they're not liars. What speech does your goverment not allow? If that speech were false, it could be refuted, but censorship -- force -- is the resort of liars.

[expat]

Thank goodness my Internet provider, TroglyditeNet, reaches deep into my very deep cave, because I was able to Google some poll results.

Yep, 2/3 of Americans think creationism should be taught in schools, but 55% sould it should not be taught to the exclusion of evolution. Thus, people seem to want both views, but the majority is still against a Creationist only view. But yes, the margin is not much.

Source: www.csicop.org/list/listarchive/msg00170.html

Similarly 6/10 believe sex between consenting gays should be legal; and this opinion is steadily growing over the decades.

Source:
www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030627.asp


*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-

As for living in Europe, or Canada, or any of the other places you love to tell us are indoctrinating its denizens into brainless monions, have you ever lived outside the US? Is the extent of your direct experience perhaps a vacation or two?

Which languages do you know well enough to read or listen to other cultures' media. Your rants--which is what this site is all about, so keep them coming--they are fun--are suspiciously void of first-hand knowledge of other places and peoples and drearily heavy on old tired saws of the "if-it-aint-the-US-it's-all-lies" variety.