Why do all conservative claims there is liberal media?

[Erik Mesoy]

IMO, it's because:
A) "working the refs" gets you slack and sympathy
B) It's a nice boogeyman to rally your troops around.

I will now do a google search and post excerpts of some sites. Only I'll switch "conservative" and "liberal" for [foo] in them, and the same with other giveaways. Then I'll ask you to judge which ones are biased and attacking the middle, and which ones are neutral and attacking a bias.

Title: The leader in documenting, exposing and neutralizing [foo] media bias
A poll on the right mentions a news article and polls: Do you think the major media downplayed [article] in order to further a [foo] agenda? [Yes/No]
Article 1: "[Channel] covers [news item], [channel] silent"
Article 2: [article about the alleged WMD in Iraq]
Article 3: "Hear and See the Bias: [channel]'s [foo] [person] slams [bar] [person]"

Title: Generic search for media neutrality
At the top: "What's wrong with the News", "CounterSpin" and "Activism"
Article 1: "From the [Newspaper] [Group]-Bashing Desk".
Article 2: "Did [group] lie about why it [action] soon after [event]?"

Okay, fire away, people! Which ones look conservative, which ones look liberal, and which ones look neutral? These were at the top of a Google search, not picked for one-of-each.

(Edit: Corrected stuff like "do you the media" to "do you think the media".)

 

[usarmy18]

IMO, it's because:
A) "working the refs" gets you slack and sympathy
B) It's a nice boogeyman to rally your troops around.

I will now do a google search and post excerpts of some sites. Only I'll switch "conservative" and "liberal" for [foo] in them, and the same with other giveaways. Then I'll ask you to judge which ones are biased and attacking the middle, and which ones are neutral and attacking a bias.






Okay, fire away, people! Which ones look conservative, which ones look liberal, and which ones look neutral? These were at the top of a Google search, not picked for one-of-each.

Uhh, site 1 is conservative and site 2 is liberal?

 

[PCHighway]

Something like 85 to 90% of the correspondents and reporters for major news organizations vote liberal (according to neutral polling). This colors everything from what is reported to what is not reported...

Define liberal.
I agree that it would, if what you say is true.
Link please?

The only one I can think of is the Chicago Tribune, which is crazy because its, Chicago.

Hey!
Speaking of which... Wasn't there a time when the Chicago Sun-Times was the most liberal of the two? You know, before The Enemy bought it? Back when Royko had a column on it?

The media has gotten a lot less liberal than it used to be.

EDIT - Oh, spell check never hurts when starting a thread, by the way.

 

[Godwynn]

Wasn't there a time when the Chicago Sun-Times was the most liberal of the two?

It still is isn't it?

 

[Erik Mesoy]

usarmy18, care to explain why?

 

[MobBoss]

I agree with Whomp who simply pointed out that a very large portion of the journalism educators are definitely of a liberal slant and thus by default a good portion of our media turn out the same. There are a few exceptions to this generalization, notably talk radio, but by and large, I personally feel a majority of print and television media are slanted left.

It is changing tho, due to the success' of right-wing talk radio and FOX news. And no one can deny that subscriptions to major newspapers with liberal bias are way down. Times they are a changing.

Oh, and US Army dont get into a flame war with Curt. It will only result in the both of you getting mod warnings. Just view Curt as I do. Kind of like Mark Twain ....but without the humor.

 

[usarmy18]

usarmy18, care to explain why?

Site 1 seems to be looking more into the bias of the media and the articles on Site 2 look like they were written by Moonbats.

 

[PCHighway]

It still is isn't it?

It's never been the same since Murdoch purchased it, I think around 1985. Of course, then Conrad Black (the Murdoch of Canada) bought it. I actually don't know who owns it now, but it has become steadily less conservative. (Edit, as far as I can tell Hollinger still owns) Right not it's slightly less conservative than the Tribune. The Tribune has, traditionally, been a Republican/moderate newspaper, but since Murdoch bought the Sun-Times, the Tribune has become a moderately liberal paper to fill the vacuum, (IMO).

edit, name confusion

 

[CurtSibling]

Yes sir! Since somehow me saying that if you're gonna be immature I'm gonna be immature to is a threat. Or maybe the egotistical part got to you?

Using expletives (as you did) to refer to me could be considered threatening.

No one invited you to invade my privacy, soldier...

...Was it a pre-emptive strike?

 

[ainwood]

Moderator Action: usarmy18 & curtsibling - you're both getting very tiresome.

Cease the flaming - both warned.

BTW - Forum rules apply to PMs as well. Anyone who thinks that they can abuse people via PMs without repercussions is mistaken.

And this goes to more than just usarmy18
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Elrohir]

@Erik Mesoy
I would say the first is from a conservative, or centrist position, while the second is from a more liberal one.

Just because I said that, I bet it's the other way around.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

@Erik Mesoy
I would say the first is from a conservative, or centrist position, while the second is from a more liberal one.

Just because I said that, I bet it's the other way around.

And with your second sentence, you think the first one is liberal and the second one is conservative?

Try filling in the blanks and see if any of them match headlines you've seen... for example, "Did [creationists] lie about why they [changed their textbook] after [the Kansas lawsuit]"?

 

[eyrei]

The GOP leadership makes this claim for the same reason they claim there is a 'gay agenda'. It pisses off their constituents and gets them to go vote.

It also invalidates anything stupid, evil or misguided that they do for many people, simply because it was reported by the evil communist longhairs.

 

[tomsnowman123]

Michael Medved said a couple of years ago (on his radio show) that a thrid-party study showed that about 61% of all major media outlets in the US are biased towards the left, or have an inclination towards the left.

 

[Red Door]

Here's who I can say without remorse has a "liberal bias:"
Washington Post
CNN
New York Times
Chicago Sun-Times

"Conservative Bias:"
Fox News
Wall Street Journal Editorial
Washington Times, but the owners of the papers think their Jesus, so who knows?

 

[malclave]

“The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness. Too often, we wear liberalism on our sleeve and are intolerant of other lifestyles and opinions....We’re not very subtle about it at this paper: If you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat. I’ve been in communal gatherings in The Post, watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democrats.”
— Washington Post “Book World” editor Marie Arana in a contribution to the Post’s “daily in-house electronic critiques,” as quoted by Post media reporter Howard Kurtz in an October 3, 2005 article.

“Personally, I have a great affection for CBS News....But I stopped watching it some time ago. The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me. I still check in, but less and less frequently. I increasingly drift to NBC News and Fox and MSNBC.”
— Former CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter in an op-ed published January 13, 2005 in the Los Angeles Times.

“Where I work at ABC, people say ‘conservative’ the way people say ‘child molester.’”
— ABC 20/20 co-anchor John Stossel to CNSNews.com reporter Robert Bluey, in a story posted January 28, 2004.

“Most of the time I really think responsible journalists, of which I hope I’m counted as one, leave our bias at the side of the table. Now it is true, historically in the media, it has been more of a liberal persuasion for many years. It has taken us a long time, too long in my view, to have vigorous conservative voices heard as widely in the media as they now are. And so I think yes, on occasion, there is a liberal instinct in the media which we need to keep our eye on, if you will.”
— ABC anchor Peter Jennings appearing on CNN’s Larry King Live, April 10, 2002

“There is a liberal bias. It’s demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time. There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias. There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for — most of the people who work at Newsweek live on the upper West Side in New York and they have a liberal bias....[ABC White House reporter] Brit Hume’s bosses are liberal and they’re always quietly denouncing him as being a right-wing nut.”
— Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.

“There are lots of reasons fewer people are watching network news, and one of them, I’m more convinced than ever, is that our viewers simply don’t trust us. And for good reason. The old argument that the networks and other `media elites’ have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it’s hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don’t sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we’re going to slant the news. We don’t have to. It comes naturally to most reporters.....Mr. Engberg’s report set new standards for bias....Can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, a network news reporter calling Hillary Clinton’s health care plan ‘wacky?’...
“‘Reality Check’ suggests the viewers are going to get the facts. And then they can make up their mind. As Mr. Engberg might put it: ‘Time Out!’ You’d have a better chance of getting the facts someplace else — like Albania.”
— CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg on an anti-flat tax story by CBS reporter Eric Engberg, February 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed.

caveat: These quotes are from http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics2admissions.asp, a site dedicated to demonstrating that a liberal media bias does exist.

 

[PCHighway]

Here's who I can say without remorse has a "liberal bias:"
[...]
Chicago Sun-Times

As I have stated, the Sun-Times is not a liberal newspaper, and hasn't been since the Alien, Rupert Murdoch, bought the paper in 1984. I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but as a Journalist minor who reads the Chicago Trib. and the Sun-Times every Sunday, I can safely tell you your information is outdated .

Yes, the Sun-Times was one of the most liberal papers back in the day (before you or I were born), but times have changed since the Alien invasion. When Murdoch sold the paper, he sold it to Conrad Black (who I will henceforth refer to as the Canadian Alien) who was more biased than the Australian Alien, if that is possible. The Canadian Alien got indicted for fraud (cite). The company he was CEO of, Hollinger Inc., still owns the paper.

You could probably add these two to the Conservative list:
Arizona Republic
Indianapolis Star

 

[Taliesin]

What do "left-wing" and "right-wing", "liberal" and "conservative" even mean in this context? I would argue that these terms actually have very little to do with how serious reporting and editorial positions are crafted. It's also extremely narrow to talk about news sources as falling into one of two groups, or even somewhere on a one-dimensional continuum. This whole discussion presumes that there are two competing and solitary realities, and that somebody who subscribes to the other reality can simply be ignored and castigated.

Why not talk about how different news organisations deal with specific issues? or at least think about axes that are a bit more interesting than the meaningless "liberal" and "conservative"?

For example, it might help to think in terms of how pro-establishment an outlet is, and of what kind of establishment it supports. News outlets are generally pretty strongly pro-establishment, especially local media (because they lack the resources to really challenge anything) and network media (because unchallenging pro-establishment views will sell the most every time). In general, only large and urban outlets wish and can afford to sometimes offer challenging news perspectives or unconventional editorial policies. Others either unabashedly push an establishment agenda of some kind, or find a target audience and tell it mostly what it wants to hear.

This is why the American discourse of liberal and conservative media perplexes me. From my (admittedly limited) perspective, American media basically break down along the following lines: Pro-establishment (with varying degrees of willingness to challenge it: e.g. CNN, NBC, Wall Street Journal, NY Times, Washington Post), Sectarian (FOX... actually, that's the only one that springs to mind at the moment, but throw in all those thoughtlessly controversial "pundits"), and Independent (but not anti-establishment, e.g. PBS).

In Canada we have, in my opinion, two axes of legitimate pro-establishment outlets: the non-Asper urban newspapers, most obviously including the Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail (and I guess I could count the National Post, since it at least pretends not to be a corporate mouthpiece); and the public stations: CBC, PBS, and the provincial public broadcasters such as TVO. There's also a lot of uninteresting dreck, namely chain-owned local papers and the CanWest Global empire, but thank the stars, we have so far mostly avoided the sectarian noise-making and network domination which characterise much of the American press.

This is a simplistic way to describe the media, of course, but I think it's a more useful frame than liberal vs. conservative. For one, liberal and conservative American outlets agree on a heck of a lot, and disagree on surprisingly little. With the exception of PBS, perhaps, all major outlets pretty well toed the establishment line on Vietnam until the mid-seventies; there has been a similar consensus on most aspects of American foreign policy since. Nicaragua bad, El Salvador good; left-wing paramilitary groups bad, right-wing paramilitary groups good, from the New York Times to the Wall Street Journal. This is basic and accessible Chomsky (oh, but right, he's a "liberal," and an "extreme" one, so he can be ignored by most everyone). For all that CNN gets called liberal, when I watched its coverage of the latest Iraq war, I saw an uncritical acceptance of the official perspective, and breathless admiration for the might of the armed forces in action. It might as well have been FOX or worse. For interesting criticism I had to go to PBS or the CBC or the BBC.

But honestly, this whole liberal vs. conservative media discussion never fails to throw my political and literary sensibilities into revolt.

 

[Red Door]

As I have stated, the Sun-Times is not a liberal newspaper, and hasn't been since the Alien, Rupert Murdoch, bought the paper in 1984. I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but as a Journalist minor who reads the Chicago Trib. and the Sun-Times every Sunday, I can safely tell you your information is outdated .

Yes, the Sun-Times was one of the most liberal papers back in the day (before you or I were born), but times have changed since the Alien invasion. When Murdoch sold the paper, he sold it to Conrad Black (who I will henceforth refer to as the Canadian Alien) who was more biased than the Australian Alien, if that is possible. The Canadian Alien got indicted for fraud (cite). The company he was CEO of, Hollinger Inc., still owns the paper.

You could probably add these two to the Conservative list:
Arizona Republic
Indianapolis Star

Okay, okay. Chicago Sun-Times out.

 

[CaptainF]

This whole debate is stupid.

Both sides say that the media is slanted opposite their view.

Righties will say that CNN is written with a sickle and hammer, Lefties will say that FOX News is goose stepping propaganda.

In my mind, the media is slanted either towards the government, or towards sensationalism.

The whole thing is just stupid bickering. Both sides a conspiracy.

EDIT-spelling errors.