What connotes a liberal bias?

[Phlegmak]

Supposedly, the media, and many other things, have a liberal bias.

What exactly is a liberal bias?

How does the media show a liberal bias? Please be specific.

If you refuse to acknowledge sources of information that have a liberal bias, then why? Doesn't that make your own opinions impregnable? If you refuse to acknowledge a source of information with a liberal bias regardless of how truthful it is, then isn't that intellectually dishonest?

If you believe the media has a conservative bias, then why? Be specific.

 

[bathsheba666]

If you refuse to acknowledge sources of information that have a liberal bias, then why? Doesn't that make your own opinions impregnable? If you refuse to acknowledge a source of information with a liberal bias regardless of how truthful it is, then isn't that intellectually dishonest?

Isn't this called getting your retaliation in first?

If you believe the media has a conservative bias, then why? Be specific.

Because it is owned by the corporations. They are not renowned for their liberal bias. Their agenda is shareholder value, which occasionally touches the needs of the members of society, although is designed for the owners of it. Such touching is fleeting and not by design.

So the underlying message from most media reinforces the rights of the owners at the expense of the listeners.

 

[Keshik]

A liberal bias is defined as reporting the news in a way that advances the agenda of those on the left, mainly Democrats. The quickest example I can think of is a headline from my local newspaper last Sunday, reprinted from the NY Times, reporting on the new Iraqi government: "New Iraqi Government has Holes". In my opinion the news of the day was that Iraqis formed a government. The bias in the reporting was to say the government was somehow a disappointment meaning Iraq is not progressing, which is bad for President Bush and, hence, liberal.

 

[willemvanoranje]

A liberal bias is defined as reporting the news in a way that advances the agenda of those on the left, mainly Democrats. The quickest example I can think of is a headline from my local newspaper last Sunday, reprinted from the NY Times, reporting on the new Iraqi government: "New Iraqi Government has Holes". In my opinion the news of the day was that Iraqis formed a government. The bias in the reporting was to say the government was somehow a disappointment meaning Iraq is not progressing, which is bad for President Bush and, hence, liberal.

Well, I do not see any prove of liberal biass in that. Sure, anything has some biass in it, but this? Maybe the Iraqi government is somewhat disappointing because it does not seem to be able to do anything about the current situation there?

 

[warpus]

Screaming "Liberal bias!!" is just an easy cop-out for someone who doesn't want to face certain criticisms.

 

[Keshik]

Well, I do not see any prove of liberal biass in that. Sure, anything has some biass in it, but this? Maybe the Iraqi government is somewhat disappointing because it does not seem to be able to do anything about the current situation there?

Maybe YOU have liberal bias? It's o.k. You can admit it.

My thoughts on that particular headline were that maybe it could have been the unsexy but objective "Iraq Forms New Government". I'm not saying the article should not contain discussion of the holes in the government. It was the headline that contained the slant. It's hard not to think the editors do this intentionally to influence the thinking of those who may not delve into the full article.

 

[covok48]

My own pet experiment:

I remember reading a November Time magazine right after the 2004 election. I focused particularly on the letters to the editor in favor and opposed to W's election. Out of 20 letters, 17 were negative dooms-day "the world is ending" rants from left leaning Democrats who voted for Kerry, and 3 had anything positive to say about W's win (2 were Republicans, and 1 Democrat whot voted Rep.)

And if you read all the letters in total, you would've thought that Kerry had won the election sicne all people were unhappy with W (the poll results tell a different story). Now if your ran letters by % of of votes for each canidate you'd see something in the ball park of 10 pro W: 10 Con, or 11 pro W: 9 con, or even 12 pro W:8 con, and trust me they get thousands of letters every week, I'm sure they could've picked out 10, 11, or 12 for Bush.

This tells me one of two things: That either A) Time is biased for clearly promoting a certain attitude towards W & Republicans by overexposing a certain point of view or B) the readership of time magazine is majority liberal and thus the magazine was appeasing its readership base and thus slants its content to their POV. Either way their claim of being "balanced & objective" is diminished.

---------------------

Real Life Example:

The Illegal Immigration protests in Dallas and elsewhere. The media (print, TV) show the American flad waving immigrants in white shirts holding up signs like "we love the USA" and then go on their speel about how and why we should grant amnesty. Going to the real protest (as I did in Dallas) I saw the majority waving mexican flags with Mexico color facepaint and appearal with not so friendly signs of "Texas/ The Southwest Belongs to Mexico" and chanting slogans like we white European anglos should go back to Europe. *If* I saw an American flag, it was always under the flag of the immigrants country of origin. I really didn't feel like granting them amnesty after that.

 

[Phlegmak]

Maybe YOU have liberal bias? It's o.k. You can admit it.

My thoughts on that particular headline were that maybe it could have been the unsexy but objective "Iraq Forms New Government". I'm not saying the article should not contain discussion of the holes in the government. It was the headline that contained the slant. It's hard not to think the editors do this intentionally to influence the thinking of those who may not delve into the full article.

But what if it was simply trying to tell the truth? The article was about how the new Iraqi government has problems, so the title of the article was appropriate?

 

[Mr. Do]

I agee with Keshik- "liberal bias" means reporting the news even if it is inconvenient for Republicans.

 

[Urederra]

But what if it was simply trying to tell the truth? The article was about how the new Iraqi government has problems, so the title of the article was appropriate?

I guess one difference between liberal and conservative is that conservatives admit they are biased, whereas liberals don't.

My sources of information are mainly from internet, but I just recall the past US elections where TV channels interviewed people on the streets and the majority of them said they were going to vote Kerry, and then, Oh surprise, Bush got re-elected.

They were not better than Jay Leno when he does the Jaywalking and chooses the funniest interviews.

 

[Lambert Simnel]

The quickest example I can think of is a headline from my local newspaper last Sunday, reprinted from the NY Times, reporting on the new Iraqi government: "New Iraqi Government has Holes". In my opinion the news of the day was that Iraqis formed a government. The bias in the reporting was to say the government was somehow a disappointment meaning Iraq is not progressing, which is bad for President Bush and, hence, liberal.

As a comparison, this is how Reuters reported it. Yes, a couple of key positions are not agreed, but the key element of Shi'ite or Sunni has been agreed for those two. In general, I'd have to say that:

(a) "New Iraqi Government has Holes" is an unnecessarily negative assessment of the news, and is probably a reflection of some level of bias on behalf of the person who selected the headline,

(b) Reuters (& all of the other major agencies) had this on Friday, and your paper had it on Sunday. You're not reading news, you're reading olds.

 

[Odin2006]

Truth has a liberal bias.

 

[amadeus]

I know I'll get raked over the coals for this, but I recommand reading a copy of "And That's The Way It Isn't" by Brent Bozell. The book largely predates cable news services, so it gives you a more narrow picture of TV journalism in the late 1980s.

While the authors themselves are unabashedly conservative, the statistics in these pages are priceless in their utility, so far as understanding the bias of the "main stream media," typically meaning the largest outlets.

In survey after survey, it is shown time and time again that the vast majority of newspaper editors, TV personalities, etc. describe themselves as being liberal. There's no magic tricks here, it's just the nature of the business.

 

[warpus]

You kinda have to be open minded to be a newspaper editor, don't you think?

 

[Ayatollah So]

"Liberal bias" means the reader/viewer is more conservative than the media channel in question. "Conservative bias" means the reader/viewer is more liberal.

OK, a little more seriously, you could do what covok48 does and compare the media to the voters. But if you find that they roughly agree, does that mean there is no bias in the media, or that the media has succeeded in brainwashing the public?

 

[Silent Spectre]

Anything that speaks out agaist the God King President of the United States.

Obviously I'm joking. What does annoy me is when people scream 'liberal bias' at everything they disagree with, even if the source is something normally pro-republican. Part of me want to start ranting about the 'republican media bias' whenever someone brings up something that I don't agree with.

 

[blackheart]

In survey after survey, it is shown time and time again that the vast majority of newspaper editors, TV personalities, etc. describe themselves as being liberal. There's no magic tricks here, it's just the nature of the business.

lib·er·al
adj.

1.
1. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
2. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
3. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
4. Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.

I would HOPE that the media is liberal if its in this sense then...

 

[.Shane.]

In survey after survey, it is shown time and time again that the vast majority of newspaper editors, TV personalities, etc. describe themselves as being liberal. There's no magic tricks here, it's just the nature of the business.

Does it also investigate the political views of the owners of the media? Those who pay the bills and provide the funding?

nm, I know the answer.

As another poster has indicated, there's a difference between the political sense of "liberal" and the idea of "liberal" in the approach to information. Just as there's a difference between being a "Democrat" and a "democrat." But, such distinctions are not conventient for those who need to demonize the media.

 

[GenMarshall]

From what I noticed in recent years from conservatives in these forums. Liberal bias is when the media bashes Bush and his administration.

 

[C~G]

I guess I have to summon yet another quote from the Sage of Baltimore.

All successful newspapers are ceaselessly querulous and bellicose. They never defend anyone or anything if they can help it; if the job is forced on them, they tackle it by denouncing someone or something else.
- H.L. Mencken

That is what liberal media should be really about. Informative, objective but at the same time aggressive towards those that hold the power.

At the present most of the media has failed in all those.