The media is neither conservative or liberal

[rush22]

They want to make money. Media companies make money by selling audiences to their advertisers.

To get more viewers, the media has become sensationalist and tabloid-like. This is perceived as a bias.

For example:

"BREAKING NEWS: Will global warming truly destroy the planet in less than 20 years? A scientist says it will!"

= perceived "liberal" bias

"REVEALED: America's New Empire: Can scientists prove that America is God's light in a dark world?"

= perceived "conservative" bias

Result? More viewers. More money.

The media are acting like small children clamouring for attention because they finally got a taste of it.

"Is George Bush actually a doody-head? Timmy explains why!"

= perceived "liberal" bias

"Is John Kerry a flippity-flopster who likes to drink pee-pee? Little Sally has the pics to prove it!"

= perceived "conservative" bias

To see if there truly is bias in the media, you have to ignore the sensationalist aspects, which, these days, are rampant.

You also have to ignore journalistic ignorance:

"Check the facts? Why bother, it's a great story!"
"Check the facts? Nah, I know what I'm doing."
"Check the facts? No way, I understand the situation perfectly, because I'm a journalist."
"Check the facts? No, I'm lying and I couldn't care less!"

Here's how stupidity and ignorance can look like bias or propaganda even:

In the Globe and Mail, I once saw an article about Iraq. It was accompanied by a 1/3 of a page picture of a funeral for a firefighter who died on September 11th. There was nothing in the article about September 11th.

= percevied "conservative" propaganda

..and I'm sure some of you can come up with your examples of liberal "propaganda" off the top of your head.

You see, the real "bias" is that the much of the media is appalling stupid and greedy.*

*insert conservative/liberal joke here

[rush22]

Ok, I still want to talk about FOXNews though.

FOXNews, in my opinion is a whole different animal, they don't even report the truth, theirs actually is propaganda, but it is mostly consumerist propaganda which rides on the conservative views they espouse (which makes their advertisers, especially the conservative ones, and FOX's bank accounts very happy).

I mean, I saw an ad for the "Special Easter Weekend edition" of "The Cost of Freedom", their business show, which talked about the "current passion for consumer spending" (consumer spending stagnated in April) and about "Cashing in on Chri$t" (yes, Christ has a dollar sign in his name now) juxtaposed over pictures of crucifixes, stock markets, and a cemetery--telling which investments "don't have a prayer."

If it's not sacreligious to tell people how to "cash in" on the Holy Son of God, I don't know what is. Don't make "liberals" fight that battle for you!

[Herr Doktor]

I totally agree with your argument, although I'd say that the clamouring for advertising space doesn't create a netiher left nor right wing bias, but a pretty hefty right wing bias. There is no chance a news story on exploitation of 3rd world (and indeed american) workers, as they are most likly making the products that the advertisers are selling.
And about fox news, well, ohdear...ohdearohdearohdear :S

[MO]

[MO]

Crazy-Like-A-Fox News Viewer
May 12, 2004
Ann Coulter
www.anncoulter.org/
Last week, John S. Carroll, editor of the Los Angeles Times, delivered a lecture during "Ethics Week" of the Society of Professional Journalists. The speaker has not yet been announced for "Abstinence Week" of the Society of Professional Whores.

Showing the fierce independence of the mainstream media, Carroll's speech was yet another liberal rant about the threat to freedom and democracy posed by the Fox News Channel. Carroll cited the hoax poll liberals quote every 10 minutes that purports to show people who watch Fox News are ignorant retards.

The poll was taken by the "Program on International Policy Attitudes," which specializes in polling Americans about pointless little factoids loved by liberals. One PIPA poll, for example, asked whether "so far this year, more Israelis or more Palestinians have died in the conflict, or is the number roughly equal?" To the shock and dismay of the researchers, "only 32 percent of respondents were aware that more deaths have occurred on the Palestinian side than on the Israeli side."

There was no poll question about which group was more likely to die as a result of suicide bombings against innocent civilians and which as a result of strategic strikes against known terrorists. During World War II, PIPA would have been issuing indignant press releases announcing that "only 32 percent of respondents are aware Hitler is kind to his dog."

The most famous PIPA poll claims to demonstrate that "the Fox News audience showed the highest average rate of misperceptions" about the war with Iraq -- by which they mean "misperceptions of pointless liberal factoids about the war with Iraq." You say the average American can't regurgitate liberal talking points on command? Well, I'll be darned! And the public schools are trying so hard!

The poll asked questions like this: "Is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaida terrorist organization?" Sixty-seven percent of Fox News Channel viewers said the United States had found evidence of a link. Liberals view this as a "misperception."

Admittedly the evidence may not be as "clear" as the evidence proving a link between Osama bin Laden and Halliburton, but among other evidence connecting Iraq to al-Qaida, consider just these three items.

Last year papers were found in Iraqi intelligence headquarters documenting Saddam's feverish efforts to establish a working relationship with al-Qaida. In response to Iraq's generous invitation to pay all travel and hotel expenses, a top aide to Osama bin Laden visited Iraq in 1998, bearing a message from bin Laden. The meeting went so well that bin Laden's aide stayed for a week. Iraq intelligence officers sent a message back to bin Laden, the documents note, concerning "the future of our relationship."

In addition, according to Czech intelligence, a few months before the 9-11 attacks, Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence agents in Prague.

Finally, a Clinton-appointed federal judge, U.S. District Court judge Harold Baer, has made a legal finding that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks -- a ruling upheld by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals last October. When some judge discovers a right to gay marriage in a 200-year-old document written by John Adams, Americans are forced to treat the decision like the God-given truth. But when a federal judge issues a decision concluding that Iraq was behind the 9-11 attacks, it is a "misperception" being foisted on the nation by Fox New Channel.

Interestingly, liberals refuse to believe Czech intelligence on the Prague meeting ... because the CIA doesn't believe it. Apparently, this is the lone, singular assertion by the CIA that liberals wholeheartedly trust. The CIA also concluded that evidence of WMDs in Iraq was -- in the words of CIA director George Tenet -- a "slam dunk case." But liberals hysterically denounce that CIA conclusion as a "misperception" created by Fox News Channel.

Thus another question in the PIPA poll was this: "Since the war with Iraq ended, is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found Iraqi weapons of mass destruction?" Thirty-three percent of Fox News viewers said they believed the U.S. had found WMDs, compared to only 11 percent of those smart NPR listeners. (How about asking NPR listeners which kills more children -- handguns or buckets?)

By "weapons of mass destruction," what liberals mean is: missiles pointed at Washington, D.C., with their "Ready to Fire" lights blinking ominously and their warhead payloads clearly marked "Weapons of Mass Destruction! Next Stop, The Great Satan America!" -- basically what you might see on an episode of the original Batman TV series. When we didn't find that, the "Bush lied, kids died!" screaming began.

David Kay's report said we hadn't found "stockpiles" of WMDs in Iraq, but we have found:

-- chemical and biological weapons systems, plans, "recipes" and equipment, all of which could have resumed production on a moment's notice with Saddam's approval;

-- reference strains of a wide variety of biological-weapons agents (found in the home of a prominent Iraqi biological warfare scientist);

-- new research on brucella and Congo-Crimean hemorrhagic fever, and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin;

-- a prison laboratory complex for testing biological weapons on humans;

-- long-range missiles (prohibited by United Nations resolutions) suitable for delivering WMDs;

-- documents showing Saddam tried to obtain long-range ballistic missiles from North Korea;

-- facilities for manufacturing fuel propellant useful only for prohibited Scud-variant missiles.

Sorry to bore Fox News viewers with these facts. I'm doing it as a favor to readers of the Los Angeles Times.

[rush22]

"In this recurring nightmare of a presidency, we have a national debate about whether he [Bill Clinton] 'did it,' even though all sentient people know he did. Otherwise there would be debates only about whether to impeach or to assassinate."

-- Ann Coulter

She also would like to declare Jihad on Arabs.

" invade their [Anti-American demonstrators in Arab nations] countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity."

-- Ann Coulter

She also got rave reviews from the Los Angeles Times for her book.

Ann Coulter's Slander is "a clever, documented diatribe."

-- Andrew Malcolm, former deputy communications manager for the Bush presidential campaign, and book reviewer at the Los Angeles Times.

[rush22]

The poll asked questions like this: "Is it your impression that the U.S. has or has not found clear evidence in Iraq that Saddam Hussein was working closely with the al-Qaida terrorist organization?" Sixty-seven percent of Fox News Channel viewers said the United States had found evidence of a link. Liberals view this as a "misperception."

Admittedly the evidence may not be as "clear" as the evidence proving a link between Osama bin Laden and Halliburton, but among other evidence connecting Iraq to al-Qaida, consider just these three items.

Last year papers were found in Iraqi intelligence headquarters documenting Saddam's feverish efforts to establish a working relationship with al-Qaida. In response to Iraq's generous invitation to pay all travel and hotel expenses, a top aide to Osama bin Laden visited Iraq in 1998, bearing a message from bin Laden. The meeting went so well that bin Laden's aide stayed for a week. Iraq intelligence officers sent a message back to bin Laden, the documents note, concerning "the future of our relationship."

In addition, according to Czech intelligence, a few months before the 9-11 attacks, Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence agents in Prague."

Ms. Coulter misinterprets the results. The key word is NOT just "clear" but "closely". There has been no clear evidence found that Iraq was working closely with al-Qaeda. Ms. Coulter admits that no clear evidence of a close relationship has been found.

Here is the PIPA report, read it for yourself:

Questionnaire:
www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Questionnaire.pdf
Press Release about results:
www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Press.pdf
Report:
www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf

[rush22]

One more thing, anybody know what she means when she says:

How about asking NPR listeners which kills more children -- handguns or buckets?

Buckets? How do buckets kill children?

[MrRight]

Yep, More kids drowned in 5 gallon buckets that are killed by handguns every year. I believe the CDC has the statistics.

[rush22]

hmmm. interesting bucket-death statistic, I guess that is common knowledge? who knows that?

[rush22]

Ok. I'm reading on the CDC site, and it looks to me that in all types of drowning and in all ages, there were 3,399 deaths. In all types of firearms related deaths (homicide, suicide, accidental, and undetermined) there were a total of 29,455 deaths.

That means you are 8 times more likely to be killed by a gun than drown. If you could provide that bucket statistic to compare to, I'd appreciate it, since the CDC numbers do not seem to fit.

www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_13.pdf

[frankiegoestostoke]

I couldn't help noticing this:

One PIPA poll, for example, asked whether "so far this year, more Israelis or more Palestinians have died in the conflict, or is the number roughly equal?" To the shock and dismay of the researchers, "only 32 percent of respondents were aware that more deaths have occurred on the Palestinian side than on the Israeli side."

Surely the the fact that only 32% of Fox viewers were aware that more deaths have occurred on the Palestinian side DOES show that Fox is very heavily biased?

There was no poll question about which group was more likely to die as a result of suicide bombings against innocent civilians and which as a result of strategic strikes against known terrorists.

So this article is suggesting that although more Palestinians were killed, they were all terrorists so it doesn't matter? A freind of the family who went out to Palestine for three weeks saw four year old child shot in the head as he was sitting in bedroom window reading, his head facing away from the window. Israeli road blocks didn't premit the ambulance to take the child to hospital.

But I assume this child, and the nineteen Palestinians killed in an Israel incursion (most of whom were women and children) last week were all terrorists?

I'm not denying that both sides have it rough, and im not denying that civilains are killed on both sides. But far more Palestinian civilians are killed, and the Palestinians, largly due to Israeli occupation, have a much worse quality of life.

This the fact that only 32% of Fox viewers know that more Palestinians are killed than Israelis, shows a terrible media bias.

During World War II, PIPA would have been issuing indignant press releases announcing that "only 32 percent of respondents are aware Hitler is kind to his dog."

This is absurd reactionary nonscence. It seems to be imply that all Palestinians are as evil as Hitler, and the fact that more of them die is an irrelevancy.

Rush 22's original point that the media is niether conservative nor liberal was very astute. Considering it hasn't been replied to properly yet, am I to assume you will stop your wining about this ridulous perceived "liberal bias"?

[MO]

I think Israel has shown great restraint by not mowing them all down.

[Ian]

FOXNews, in my opinion is a whole different animal, they don't even report the truth, theirs actually is propaganda, but it is mostly consumerist propaganda which rides on the conservative views they espouse (which makes their advertisers, especially the conservative ones, and FOX's bank accounts very happy).

Even if FoxNews is this radical conservative channel you still have CNN and MSNBC. How are CNN and MSNBC liberal you ask. Let's take a quick look:

CNN

1. Owned by Ted Turner.

2. Reliable Sources

3. Paula Zahn, Margret Carlson, Mark Shields, Al Hunt, Paul Begala, James Carville etc...

4. Tucker Carlson...lol...kind of...

MSNBC

1. Don Imus

2. The nightly lineup: Dan Abrahms, Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Deborah Norville before you get to Joe Scarborough.

Then ofcourse you have the networks where I don't remember seeing one pro-bush story since 9/11, when liberals were in the phony pro-american mode.

Networks hosted by: Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather and Peter Jennings. There's fair and balanced coverage for you.

[MO]

The liberals just hate that there is a news station that gets it right about half the time. It hurts their efforts to spread lies to promote their political ideology. Their useful idiots just suck up what they say without question. For example, in 1999, when we were hearing all the rhetoric about a "surplus" the published National Debt figure rose by $124 billion dollars.