I still get a kick out of this everytime I hear conservatives spout out over and over and over again about the liberal media bias. If they keep saying it long enough, eventually they will convince everyone it does really exist.

I offer this local example of the most prominent Talk Radio station here in Tucson. Tucson is a pretty small market and Pima County has a democratic majority of registered voters, but we don't have a wide variety of AM Talk Radio stations and aren't given many alternative viewpoints.

Here is their lineup.

10:00am - 1:00p Rush Limbaugh
1:00 - 2:00pm KNST Mid Day, News Paul Harvey News at 12:15PM, Victoria Bell with news
2:00 - 4:00pm Dr. Laura Schlessinger
4:00 - 7:00 pm Michael Savage
7:00 - 8:00 pm Sports Tonight with Ryan Radtke
8:00 - 11:00 pm Sean Hannity

Why not throw in Bill O'Reilly for good measure? They also had G Gordon Liddy at one point in their lineup.

If there truly was a liberal bias, Gore would be President. The press, including that portion often accused of being liberal (CBS, NY Times, Washington Post) was much harder on Gore than Bush during the campaign.

You are mixing apples with oranges when talking about radio vs. television. Radio is the only outlet for conservative hosts outside of Fox Television. Rupert Murdoch is the only owner of all the major networks and newspapers who is not liberal(insert Jewish if you want). I realize there is a growing swell of Conservative Jewish-Americans but the overwhelming majority are liberal and well educated. This may not be politically correct assessment but true.

I find most American media to be full of bias towards this or that cause. Most of it strikes me as almost propaganda, skewed towards someone's cause. Be it left wing, right wing, Christian, environmentalist, Israeli, gay, whatever. The actual news is usually buried beneath a load of crap. I still regard the BBC news as about the most reliable source of information about world events. Although I typically read the propaganda news from all sides of an issue and develop my own views after balancing the opposing sides propaganda against each other.

BTW. The simple reason there are no liberal radio talk shows it that few liberals actually listen to AM radio. The ratings just aren't there.

Xeneno
Don't confuse the term "media bias" with programing choices. Your local radio programming has to do with local market factors. I believe the term "media bias" has more to do with national bigtime media outlets.

Let's examine the facts:

ABC is owned by Disney - clearly they have a liberal bias. Disney is one of the more militant gay employers in the world, and they're using ABC to further their agenda.

NBC & CBS (news) have a clearly liberal/left bias in their reporting. They choose lifestyle issues that interest/promote the lefties.

CNN? They're off the charts they're so liberal. For years, Turner and wife made sure that CNN was the 'bully pulpit' of the gay agenda. In fact, if I see one more ACLU interview on their network, I swear I'll puke.

NPR (National Public Radio) is a lost cause. You can't get an unbiased word out of them.

As a libertarian who has endured many years of 'media bias', I'm afraid I gotta respectfully disagree with ya there buddy. Without Fox news, mainstream national television would remain completely liberal.

The main reason why I don't buy the whole "mainstream media is liberal" argument is because of several factors that I list below.

We have a Republican President. We have a Republican Congress. Five out of the nine Supreme Court justices are conservative. Conservatives now control all three branches of the Federal Government and have since 2000. We have more Republican governors than Democratic governors. For six out of the eight years of the Clinton administration we had a Republican Congress.

If there was a clear, obvious, and concerted effort by mainstream media to slant their stories towards influencing an agenda that is left, thereby brainwashing all of the masses towards their views, how could Republicans ever expect to win an election or control the government? I just don't buy it. Do Republicans flourish in this environment despite the sinister plans of a handful of button pushers? I don't think so.

I think it is a made up rallying cry to energize their support base and if they keep repeating it long enough, most people will actually start to believe it.

I also can't believe that with the thousands of people that must be employed in the news rooms of all the organizations that are mentioned above, that if a clear liberal bias did exist, that is has never come out that some liberal exec or button pusher was making a reporter or writer slant their stories left.

I think what is more dangerous is that a second Jayson Blair named Jack Kelley has now emerged, this time within USA Today. He simply made up facts that didn't exist.

I think the response I agree with the most and that makes the most sense in this thread is I_Am_Sancho's.

Xenono makes a very good point.

It makes me want to scream whenever people start spouting about media bias.

Has it ever occurred to any of you that the bias is with the audience as well as the broadcasters?


If your views lean towards the conservative side then any view which differs from yours is "liberal" biased crap.

If your "liberal" then you'll see all the news that doesn't agree with your opinion as "conservative" propaganda.

Any news that conforms with your opinion is accurate and "unbiased".

I don't consider myself to be "liberal". But from reading some of the posts here, I'm sure that some of you would consider me to be "liberal".

Xeneno
We agree on one thing (if nothing more
I_am_Snacho is correct to say that all media is biased by the agency that reports it.
You can defend ABC and CNN as 'unbiased' until you're blue in the face, but this is America
40% liberal
40% conservative
20% moderate
As a libertarian, I don't consider myself liberal or conservative, so can enjoy the freedom from these labels.
The good thing about American politics? Free market press is a good thing. The stellar success of Fox news might account for the fact that they are the sole conservative voice of news amongst a sea of liberal competitors!

DG
Less government is a good thing

Fox News is right of center.

ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and NPR are left of center. It's not so much who they are for, but who they are against.

Why? Who knows. I do know that a poll a few years ago of people at the networks showed that they are overwhelmingly registered Democrats. Imagine that? The bias doesn't come through in every story. I'm not saying that nor would I advocate that. It's subtle.

The problem with Xen's argument is this. You can't conclude that just because Republicans win more elections, that proves the lack of a liberal bias in mainstream media. All that proves is that people are turned off by the liberal slant. There is a reason that Fox News kicks CNN's ass now. It would kick the network's ass too if it were in as many homes. Again, it's subtle, but it exists. Just watch Katie Couric interview a Bush official sometime. I personally see it most in ABC News and CNN.

Again, there's a reason why more people in this country watch FOX news than CNN. Even people that vote Democrat don't like to hear their country subtly run down and blamed for everything bad in the world.

One more thing Xen... O'Reily is not a conservative. He pisses off just as many conservatives as he does liberals. His personal jihads irritate me and I rarely watch any of his show.

In today's news on Yahoo:

Leftwing broadcasters take to airwaves
Wed Mar 24, 3:35 PM ET

By Holly Yeager in New York

Liberal radio station hopes to ride a wave of perceived antipathy to the Bush administration and so succeed where other leftwing broadcasters have failed. From a cramped 40th floor office on Park Avenue, Mark Walsh is plotting a radio revolution.

There are empty fizzy drink cans and coffee cups everywhere. Someone in blue jeans is sitting on the floor, tapping at a laptop. Pieces of paper are taped all over the walls. The plac e has the look and feel of a political campaign. And it is one, of sorts.

With a small band of performers, writers, technicians and investors, Mr Walsh is taking a set of unmistakably leftwing voices to America's airwaves, where the right reigns supreme.

Air America radio goes on the air next Wednesday, initially in four cities - New York, Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles - as well as by satellite and over the internet. By the end of the year, Mr Walsh hopes to be in 36 markets, through a combination of station leases and purchases, syndication deals and other arrangements.

"You couldn't ask for a better time to launch," said Mr Walsh, chief executive of the fledgling network.

Al Franken, the comedian-turned-author who will be Air America's top personality, has put it more plainly: "Bush is going down in November."

So far, conservatives are showing no signs of fear. "This country is based on the principle of free speech, so we wish them well," said a spokesman for Fox News, where Bill O'Reilly, a popular talk radio host, also has a television programme.

Air America faces an uphill battle as it tries to win listeners and advertisers in a tough market. But, with liberal authors such as Mr Franken on the bestseller list and an infusion of cash into new left-leaning political groups, there are signs that the time may be right.

"People hate Bush. They're so furious," said Eric Alterman, a liberal media critic. "They just want to be surrounded by reinforcement. They want that in their car radio, in the book s they pick up - it's just a consuming thing."

Listeners in search of those views today have only a few places to turn. While National Public Radio, the US public radio network, is seen as liberal, it doesn't offer the same satiri cal commentary that conservative talk radio stars such as Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Mr O'Reilly provide.

"Democrats are not going to listen to liberal radio because they feel they have to," Mr Walsh said. "Our product has to entertain, it has to inform, it has to be funny and it has to be serious, all at the same time." To prove it has sharp edges, Air America is calling its first programme of the day Morning Sedition, a direct jab at NPR's Morning Edition.

Mr Walsh, a veteran of HBO, America Online and the Democratic National Committee (news - web sites), was volunteering for Democrat presidential contender John Kerry (news - web sites)'s campaign when he joined the radio n etwork last autumn. While he has no formal ties with the Kerry camp, the "Bring it On!" slogan that Mr Kerry has adopted appears on some Air America posters.

The group has raised $25m in equity, mostly from wealthy individuals who, Mr Walsh said, made their investments "based on belief and business".

A separate arm, called Equal Time, which has $30m in debt capacity, will acquire and operate radio stations. The group expects to lose money in its first two years and become profitab le early in its third.

Past efforts to provide a liberal voice on radio have not worked for several reasons. Mario Cuomo, the former New York governor, and attorney Alan Dershowitz had shortlived shows that were sandwiched between conservative talkers. And while Mr Limbaugh and others rose to prominence in the 1990s by tapping into anger some had for then-president Bill Clinton (news - web sites), "we had no rage to drive our listeners", Mr Walsh said.

Matthew Felling, of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a Washington research group, agreed that the time was right to launch a liberal radio network. But he disagreed with Air A merica's comedy-based approach. "If you never present your message in a straightforward way, people won't be able to determine what part of your message is humour and what is fact," he said. "You won't be taken seriously, or as seriously as you should be."

But Mr Walsh is a confident campaign manager. "We have to become a media brand so rapidly that we stop competition, because there will be competition," he said. "Once we prove that so mebody is going to listen to this stuff, there will be a lot of Johnny wannabes."

I've been in the "media" business for 20 years. In that time it has become clear that big business drives media bias...not politics. The news media couldn't care less what the report on, as long as their ratings are high and they don't piss off the advertisers.

Noam Chomsky's excellent book "Manufacturing Consent" is the defining work on this topic. The book begins by outlining a Propaganda Model, 5 filters through which news must pass before making it to the mainstream American news:

-size, ownership and profit orientation
-Advertising as major revenue
-News sourcing
-"flak"
-anti-communism ( more appropriately, ideology)

A news item must serve the interests of the company that owns them, and must not offend advertisers. If a news story is too unusual, it will get flak (from groups like Accuracy in Media, AIM) which will make the media source think twice about taking this point of view a second time. If a story is not sufficiently anti-communist (pro-capitalist, anti-"terrorist"), it will not likely make the major news.

Sterling

Apparently 60 minutes missed a couple of those filters last Sunday when it aired Dick's book about Bush and failed to acknowlegde that their company is publishing it.

As for liberal radio... I predict it will go down in flames quickly, or at least be subsidized to keep it afloat. There is a reason why there are none now. The market place speaks. Anyone remember Phil Donahue's return a year or two ago on MSNBC?

Holly Yaegar is wrong, Limbaugh was number 1 before Clinton was elected. He succeeded because he was talented, not because of his political leaning.

Plus Limbaugh is a friend of one of the most degenerate members of this board. I hear they meet in our board members bomb shelter quite regularly.

Not to get tooooo deep into this conversation, but I believe that the real problem is that there is a "whatever sells newspapers and isn't too controversial" bias in the news media. It's a combination of laziness, expediency, and unwillingness/fear to dig into stories. So, for instance,the Dean scream was overplayed because it attracts viewers ("If it bleeds, it leads"). Various government chicaneries (under any administration) aren't delved into because it takes too much manpower, too much editorial oversight, and is too "nuanced" for the general public. Also, there is the issue of "balance" and impartiality - i.e. if someone makes an "anti-government" statement, the media must, "to be fair" include the government viewpoint, and vice-versa with an EQUAL AMOUNT of coverage. So, for instance, if the White House was to declare that teh Earth was flat (just an example), the headlines would be:

"White House: Earth is Flat! Some scientists disagree".

See how this distorts things? Which sentence is stronger? But from the editor's point of view, this headline is impartial and balanced.....

Moral of the story, if you want to know about the isssues of the day, read LOTS of different newspapers - conservative, liberal, US, foreign, etc (thank you, Internet), ignore the TV, and then form your own opinion as best you can.

BS

Good point BS about getting info from different sources. People tend to get info only from sources that they agree with. I'd be interested to know what the members here recommend regarding newspapers, mags, including foreign(english please) that have reliable reporting regardless of political leaning.

I think it is just terrible how the media is trumpeting Clarke's views and book usually without revealing that he is a registered Republican. Those damn liberals, they can't be honest about anything.

http://news.google.com

"Search and browse 4,500 news sources updated continuously."

This is my main source of news. I read information from foreign papers and a variety of US papers and online papers. It is great for searching about topics you are interested in as well.

Good reading if you're interested in this topic.

Author: Bernard Goldberg

Title: Bias, A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distorts the News.

Cons-will feel vindicated
libs-will deny, and attack

Thereīs something I call "commercial politics," itīs sort of like commercial sports. You have sponsors and must come up with good ratings to please them and bolster your ad rates. Itīs all about what so-and-so said today regarding who-so-ever, and now they have newsdroids camped out outside their house/office/etc waiting for the counter-comment so stay tuned etc.
Does it matter what is really going on in the world, or should you be focusing on what Rather/Brokaw/Matthews/Rush et al says is important? Funny, isnīt it, that we have so many cable stations and so little variety of the information delivered. Have you noticed that since the OJ trial hardly a year goes by without some major media event that is supposed to fully engross our lives and keep us glued to the tube?

Liberal bias? Ever hear of Fox News Channel? Ever get a look at Roger Ailesīs resume?
Liberal bias? Which media personality was NOT doing the devil dance when that skirt-chasing, civil-rights champion, pro-gay, left-wing, tax-and-spend liberal, arrogant former governor of Arkansas was being pilloried?

Both sides have their ranks, but up till now (IMO) the right has ranked on broadcast media (NPR is the radio exception (BTW, Herr OīReilly has been going after them as of late)) whereas the flagship of the liberals has been the New York Times, which is print media, though they print stuff leaning right occasionally.
But how many people in the US know who OīReilly or Pat Buchanan is? Compare that number to the people who know who Bob Edwards and Terry Gross are (two popular NPR personalities).
I consider Air America the counter to Fox. Go for it Al, and come up with someone on the left as insane as OīReilly (maybe yourself?)

For other print/online sources a good place to start is www.aldaily.com ; they have links to all sorts of newspapers and magazines worldwide.
I like to check Al Jazeera just for angles different from the Western press. Pravda (http://english.pravda.ru/allnews_en.html) can be hilarious, to the point where it can be confused the The Onion (http://www.theonion.com). Sometimes http://www.buenosairesherald.com/ has something different. I used to like BBC but after the most recent Gulf War they faded in my eyes, though they can have surprises: for example, last August when the FBI caught someone selling Stinger missiles in Baltimore the BBC labeled it an assassination attempt, as they said the Stingers were intended for Air Force One. Didnīt hear that one this side of the pond.
www.channelnewsasia.com is another, from an Asian perspective. Generally if something is going on in the world, search for English-language newspapers for those countries, and donīt forget to check both sides: eg, if you read Israeli newspapers, read Arab papers as well, and draw your own conclusions. Donīt be afraid to develop a perspective of your own.

My hard-right barometer is the Denver Post; the first time I saw it was in the 1970s back when they continued to refer to Solzhenitsin as "Red author." For example, a few weeks back when the Bush campaign was getting all that flack for using 9/11 images the Post didnīt even mention it.

Iīm looking for a link to a newspaper site that is part of the right-wing christian "waiting for the Rapture" crowd, any suggestions?

The last poll I heard or saw had 80+ % of reporters and correspondents listing themselves as left of center. That is merely a product of the leftward tilt of our journalism schools. The bias is so prevalent that I can not even beleive that there is argument over the fact. If you have 8 out of 10 people pulled to one side of the political spectrum, it is impossible to avoid bias. We are humans after all.

The fact that Republicans control congress and the white house is not an argument against bias. It is a simple result of a small part of the US public seeing through some of the bias. Thats does not mean it does not exist. But just enough people are not influenced by it to vote to the right. And because the country is so evenly divided that tilts the scales to the Republicans.

I predict this year though, that with the huge media onslaught against Bonehead( Bush)and the constant constant repetition of liberal opinion and allegation as fact, that the Dems will retake the whitehouse. But the repubs will keep control of both houses of congress and the country will see at least 4 years of gridlock. And since the economy is rising ( in spite of what you hear on the news) that is a good thing.

Batstertheopinionatedblowhard

There is no doubt that there is a liberal bias in the media. The fact that we have a conservative/republican congress and executive branch suggests to me that the media does not play as large a role as one might think in elections. No matter who you are, I would think you would this to be good news.

Baster1,

I would be very interested to see of copy of that poll if you can provide a link or source to it.

I would also be interested to know who it was conducted by, how many news organizations and reporters they surveyed, and when it was conducted.

If it is indeed true that there is a liberal media bias and said bias does NOT play a role in elections, they why are the conservatives so upset about it?

Conservatives are controlling the federal agenda and are winning elections and no one is paying attention to the liberal media slants. So what is the problem then?

The left of center main stream media will continue to subsidize the Kerry campaign because he doesn't have as much money as Bush. Is that there job? OF course not but you will continue to see the kind of stuff you saw on 60 minutes last Sunday and at the first of the year with O'Neil. Both of those men disgraced themselves after a distinguished career. However you fall on the issues, if you are an objective person then you know that they came across as bitter cry babies just because they got their feelings hurt when they were working in the administration.

It's not that complicated. There are some conservatives in the media and there are some liberals. There is not "conspiracy." I do tend to think there are more "liberals," merely because liberal types are more likely to go into journalism. Same thing with Hollywood. In general, more people that identify with liberal causes tend to go into entertainment, but it's certainly not a conspiracy.

Aldaron,

I agree with you 100% that Clark, Kay and ONeil, for whatever reason, have an ax to grind and they are doing it in a public way. It is extremely easy to question Clark's motivations and biases. Similar arguments can be made for Kay and ONeil as well.

But there is some commonality in what the three guys are saying. Unless you believe they are colluding, perhaps there may some substance in the statements that the three mutually reinforce.

I vote for liberal prostitution laws here in USA,
and conservative pricing.

DG's post make me think of something I have wanted to bring up for a LONG time here. It probably deserves its own category, but that will be for another day. I have talked too much politics recently.

We already know a majority of CH members define themselves as conservative. I wonder how many of those people who define themselves as overall conservative in their views would break that down as fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

I still find it somewhat amazing that anyone that participates in a forum about prostitutes can define themselves as conservative overall. It must be the fiscal part of it, which makes sense. Or, is just goes to show there is no one size fits all label. It may be their wallet first and foremost. Another poll here had at least 33% percent of CH members married with another 6% refusing to answer. How many of these people are bible thumping, social conservatives that go to church on Sunday’s with their families and fuck prostitutes on their business trips and vacations?

Aldaron, in another thread touched on finding it humorous or silly that people participating in a whore mongering community could engage in serious conversation and debate about religion, politics, and social issues. I don’t find that silly at all. I would imagine a majority of CH members hold college degrees with many others holding graduate and postgraduate degrees. We seem to have a good number of doctors and lawyers among our ranks here. The extension of that is that many members here are well paid which explains the overall conservative leanings of the board. It seems a natural extension that intelligent people would want talk about issues that affect us all since many people probably visit this forum daily and many people know each other personally.

(Message edited by Xenono on March 25, 2004)

Batster: I would say liberal types are drawn to journalism, rather than the schools making them liberals.

Libertarians believe that NO governmental involvement in social policy is the answer.

If I may proselytize for a moment?

Xeneno raises a valid point. Liberal social policies and conservative fiscal policies are likely prevalent here. But why do we as 'free' citizens of North America want to limit our freedoms by yielding our rights to the government?

Without wanting to start a political debate, consider this societal model:

A federal government that provides safety via the military and oversight of transportation. Judicial and legal services are public, and jails are privatized.

State and local governments that provide police, fire and emergency services.

Imagine the following:

no more war on drugs - if you want to take legal drugs (they're all legal) go ahead. If you abuse these drugs and hurt yourself or someone else, a swift legal system will incarcerate you. The model is already set up with alcohol. Why not legalize all other drugs? (note: i don't use drugs)

legalized prostitution: commerce is commerce. If the worlds' oldest profession were legalized here, prices would fall tremendously, and businesses that wanted repeat clientelle would encourage their staff to satisfy their clientelle. Nevada has a working model, however the low prices aren't there due to restrictions. (note: i DO use prostitutes)

education: the USA has some of the lowest quality education in the K-12 grades of ANY industrialized nation in the world. Why? Government monopoly runs our 'public' education instead of the free market. In my county, the average homeowner pays a tax of over $900/year for public education. What if this tax was removed and all education was privatized? Discipline, learning and productivity would rise.

social programs: I don't care for them - take care of yourself, and stop asking me to pay for your shortcomings. I've worked for the federal government, I've worked with the federal/state government, and I've witnessed firsthand the abuses of these programs. It makes me literally sick to see our country's resources wasted in this manner.

Ok... I'm finished... let the bleeding hearts fire away. I'm going to lock myself in my bunker and try to endure their fury. Fortunately, I have highspeed internet and a stockpile of beer, so I hope to weather the storm.

I can agree almost 100% with the above in the general, although I might have some implementation issues to avoid social darwinism. However, no one in the media wants to talk about this, liberal or Fox.

"the country will see at least 4 years of gridlock. And since the economy is rising ( in spite of what you hear on the news) that is a good thing."

Part of the reason for the fantastic run up in stocks during the late 90s was the direct result of neither Clinton nor his opponents in the legislative branch having the ability to over ride the other. For anyone who believes that government as an institution is inherently an obstacle to peoples' happiness and financial wellbeing it would seem that no government is better than one dominated by one party of the other.

"I vote for liberal prostitution laws here in USA, and conservative pricing."

Who could not vote for that?

"I still find it somewhat amazing that anyone that participates in a forum about prostitutes can define themselves as conservative overall."

This is a classic liberal view of the "small people" who are too stupid, too uneducated, too religious (spirituality is OK as long as you're not Christian about it) to possibly understand how to run the world. Maybe the biggest surprise is not the success of the conservative talk shows but the continual utter failure of the policies of the Left. And their total denial of this.

I consider myself a fiscal consrvative and a foreign policy hawk, but a social liberal. My biggest beef with Bush is that he spends money like a drunken sailor. Based on that reason, I beleive maybe he should go. A democratic administration and a republican leglisalture would probably be a good thing.

But I am scared of a Kerry foreign policy. I happen to believe that in the current world situation, swinging a big dick is better that flapping the lips.

Tight fit is right about the liberals viewing conservatives as simple, undeducated, oafs. They can not concede that thier are good arguments on boths sides of the political spectrum.

And finally, I think that I trend toward being a libertarian. I agree with damn near everything Don Gringo said.

Batstertheknuckledragger

I consider the media to be quite conservative these days. If Dan Rather raises an eyebrow, the conservatives go batty, but O'Reilly and Scarborough and their friends rant all day long, and the conservatives rant about the liberal media.

One thing I have noticed, in the last month or so, Fox News has attempted to be more balanced concerning the election, almost as if they are thinking that Kerry actually might win, and it might not suit Rupert Murdoch to be on the wrong side of the next administration.

Xenon,

I beleive that what I saw was in the WSJ, I will see if I can find it. But I could be wrong. Its possible what I was thinking of was not a poll, but a survey of all Washington based reporters that showed a marked liberal tendency.

Look at some of the surveys and polls at www.mediaresearch.org. Alot of the studies are produced by the news people themselves, editors, journalists, etc. There is just so much info out there on this topic that I can not believe people like Explorer say there is a conservative bias. The only conservative network is FOX.

If most of your reporters and journalists identify themselves as democrats, it is human tendency to carry that bias into your work. I do not believe in unbiased reporting. Fox is conservative and all of the other outfits are liberal and they are going to spin things there way. Take everything you get from them with a grain of salt.

I agree with Explorer on one thing though. Murdock will always suck up to the winner. He's all about profit. I personally think its a beautiful thing.

Keep in mind that the Media Research Center (MRC) is a conservative group whose mission is to find liberal bias in the media. They would find bias even if it didn't exist. To use them as a reference for "proof" is worthless.
"Fox is conservative and all of the other outfits are liberal...": Have you heard of Rush Limbaugh's outfit? He's just as wacko as the NPR group, just on the other extreme. And there are others out there, maybe not as well known.

I for one am dumbfounded at this debate. Do people honestly believe that ABC isn't liberal? or CNN? NBC and CBS don't swing quite as far to the left as ABC and CNN, but to say that they are centrust in their reporting is a bit niave as well, isn't it? NPR might as well broadcast from Moscow.

FOX and Limbaugh might be the only examples of conservative national broadcasters.

Remember too that the larger newspapers herald from huge cities that are largely populated by a liberal majority.

Again, the popularity of Foxnews on TV and Limbaugh on the radio could well be attributed to the fact that they are the sole voices of conservative values in their respective mediums.

Could some liberal thinkers out there PLEASE shoot holes in my theory?

Dongringo, you are showing your bias and your age in your post:

"I for one am dumbfounded at this debate. Do people honestly believe that ABC isn't liberal? or CNN? NBC and CBS don't swing quite as far to the left as ABC and CNN, but to say that they are centrust in their reporting is a bit niave as well, isn't it? NPR might as well broadcast from Moscow. "

ABC is owned by Disney, not exactly a radical bunch. CNN is owned by Time Warner. NPR is owned by the government, and is dead set in the middle of the road. BTW, Moscow has not been a leftist city since 1991. Right now, they are somewhat to the right of George Bush here.

"FOX and Limbaugh might be the only examples of conservative national broadcasters. "

Please read the posts above for factual disproof of your statement. Ever heard of Michael Reagan? Mike Savage? There is an army of conservative talk show hosts across the country, the conservative media is everywhere.

"Remember too that the larger newspapers herald from huge cities that are largely populated by a liberal majority."

Since most Americans live in cities these days, you are saying that most Americans are liberals. Your statement may have been accurate back in the 1950's and was a mantra of the old Republican party, but no one says that anymore.

Explorer
ABC/Disney isn't leftist? Their predominate mantra at BOTH organizations revolves around promoting the gay agenda. CLEARLY that is a leftist policy. I'll give you some leeway on defending NBC/CBS before I admit that Disney is 'not exactly a radical bunch'.

The fact that Time Warner owns CNN proves what? That they are suddenly centrust? Watch an hour of Headline News, paying attention to the 'human interest' pieces they feature, and you'll quickly realize that they play the ACLU card whenever possible.

Michael Reagan and Mike Savage are not mainstream media outlets. They are merely hosts of shows that might appear in regional outlets that garner a conservative audience. My point is that the MAJORITY of NATIONAL media outlets (TV, Newspaper and National Radio Stations) are leftist, and this statement remains unchallenged by your response.

It's a well recognized fact that most large urban cities, especially coastal cities, are liberal. Therefore, the major newspapers and local television channels in these areas are liberal, to appeal to the majority audience in these markets. I happen to live in an urban coastal county with a population of over 1 million, and I can assure you that my local newspaper is not fit to line the bottom of my birdcage, it is so liberal. That said, there are certainly plenty of conservative newspapers in the interior of America, but they're not as prominent in the NATIONAL news scene as are the liberal papers.

As for my age and bias, you might have a point! I am middle aged (pughh) and decidedly conservative in my political views. Thanks for noticing! Socially, however, I remain as liberal as can be. The fact is, as a libertarian, I would prefer that my government stick to protecting our borders and representing us internationally. Social issues are best left to the states and cities, and even then I'd prefer that big brother butt out of my life.

Abortion? Sure if the people vote for it.

Prostitution, legalized drugs, gay rights and a myriad of other 'legal' issues? Let the people decide for their own communities.

And rest assured that the altruistic, moral ramblings of O'Rielly et al grate on my nerves as much as yours. The fact that these conservative icons shine the light on liberal attempts to legislate their agenda on society is well documented too.

Less Government = More Freedoms & Lower Taxes

More Government = More Taxes, Waste and Fraud

I firmly believe that Ann Coulter is a transvestite. Husky voice, a big adam's apple and no hips. Gotta be a tranny.

However, s/he is a conservative media member.

Guys:

Media exists to SELL ADVERTISING, all the rest is window dressing....

BS

Look at the last names of all the execs of all major networks and you will understand why there is a media bias. I know many of you are skirting around this issue by using the term liberal as a safe replacement for a certain group of people.

Blazers,
What group could this possibly be? Hooked nose, skull caps? (to use a few stereo-types)
Personally, I don't have anything against any racial/racial-religious group(except for any fundamentalist group). But I do have something against being scolded for pointing out any prevailance of a non-white group in any area. We are not allowed to do that these days, however true.
But anyway, I think you hit the nail on the head (that group in America leans left). And, certainly someone will scold you for pointing that out.

(Message edited by tryer on March 31, 2004)

There is truth to what you say, however, I don't think that this totally accounts for the liberal bias in the main stream media. Ted Turner is certainly not Jewish and look at CNN. It starts at the top and then they hire people that think like them. It really is that simple.

Tryer,

Rush Limbaugh is not a news agency, he is an entertainer. He does not even belong in the same group as the alphabet soup of Broadcasters.

FOX is the only conservative NEWS network.

Media research. org is a conservative watchdog group but the studies they list are mostly studies commissioned by and conducted by members of the media.

I get a kick out of partisan politics. Fox, Media research, the Heritage foundation, etc can not be trusted because they are conservative, but Reuters, CNN, Moveon.org, are all veritable fountains of truth. Give me a break.

All media is biased. It is impossible for modern journalists operating in such a polarized environment to not interject their opinions into the mix. It is going ot be biased one way or another. And my point is that there are more left of center journailsts, broadcasters, networks than there are right of center.

I am like Dongringo. I can not believe this is even open to debate.

Blazers:

Are you suggesting that the media is controlled by a small group of attorneys?

Rush is in with Premier Radio Network or something like that, which features to my knowledge, predominently conservative shows/talent.
Batster1, if your complete retort is for me, then it seems you've made bad assumptions by lumping me in with the democrats. You fall into the same traps as most americans. Most americans want to put themselves in a group and also put others in a group. Then once they've assigned groups, they tell you what you should think because obviously the assigned group thinks that way.
Some clowns out there tout the republicans as messiahs of truth. It sounds like you are one of them. It's just complete BS. Both Dems & Reps distort truths, if not outright lie, to benefit their 'side'.
But I guess if one doesn't know right from wrong or want to think for one's self, then it may be best to just pick a side and go along with the team.

It's a simple algorithm, actually. The reason people who aren't in the media think the media is biased to the left, is because those people are less informed than most people in the media. Heh ...

Ever notice how people in higher education, professors, school teachers, journalists, and professional researchers tend to vote farther left-wing? It's because they're more informed. Simple concept. Right-wing voting (by the USA's definition of "left" or "right") is based largely on unfulfilled promises -- "you too can be one of the few incredibly rich people, just let us give tax breaks to them and they'll cut you in on their prize!" Undereducated people require an image of hope; people who know about reality, prefer to vote on the basis of it.

As far as the world's political spectrum goes, the USA is much farther to the "right" (again, by the USA's def. of the word) of center than any of the other developed nations. We're essentially a third-world military-dictatorship-style government with the trappings of democracy, at least in comparison to places like Sweden, Holland, or even Italy. So, when the "media" does something that, for 99% of the developed world would be "mainstream," that puts them well out of (and to the right of) the American norm.

Let me just add, this doesn't mean there aren't good reasons to vote right, or bad reasons for voting left. I'm just explaining what I see other voters and thinkers doing; not trying to advocate one side or the other.

If one is to the right of Attila the Hun, then by definition the media is leftist.

Conversely, Lenin would say that the US media is rightwing.

Just noticed, I got the "left" and "right" terms screwed up at least once in my first post 'dere. Well, you knew what I meant.

I've been thinking so long according to Central European usage of those terms, I can't ever remember which is which. "Conservative" is the word that screws things up the most ...

Well, in the real world where some liberals are trying to establish liberal radio talk shows, its hard to say with a straight face that the media is left wing.

Chicken-and-egg thang ... does idiot-radio produce idiots if they listen to it, or is there a market for idiot-radio because there are so many idiots listening?

"Ever notice how people in higher education, professors, school teachers, journalists, and professional researchers tend to vote farther left-wing? It's because they're more informed. Simple concept. Right-wing voting (by the USA's definition of "left" or "right") is based largely on unfulfilled promises -- "you too can be one of the few incredibly rich people, just let us give tax breaks to them and they'll cut you in on their prize!" Undereducated people require an image of hope; people who know about reality, prefer to vote on the basis of it." --BG

BG... and some people are wondering why the powers-that-be have been trying their best to dumb-down the education in this country.

BTW, there are no true leftists here in America; both the Democrats and Republicans promotes rightist politics. Maybe the greens are a teeny-weeny to the left. The socialist are, but there are only about a dozen of them left.

Yeah, "no true leftists in America" is exactly what I was getting at, with the idea that the USA's entire range is right-of-center, even the far-left of the USA's usual offerings.

I personally am an odd mix -- sometimes Libertarian, sometimes quite Bleeding-Heart-Give-'Em-Free-Cash Liberal, and always very conservative about how much the government should spend. Screwed up, no?

The saying goes:

"If you are twenty and not a liberal, you have no heart.

If you are forty and are not conservative, you have no brains."

I vote for economic conservatism only. I do not want the government to take care of me. Look what they did to social security. I also do not want it telling me how to behave.

Tryer,

I think you should reread my post. I closed by saying exactly what you did. It is impossible for reporters and journalists to not interject their bias into their reporting thus ALL info is biased one way or another. There just happend to be more liberal reporters than conservative reporters.

It seems to me that we basically agree. As far as me telling you what to believe or the Republicans being the source of all truth etc, I laugh at partisan politics. In my post I specifically mention that I find it ironic that the left is suspicious of FOX, Media research, or any other right of center organization but accept CNN or Reuters or MoveOn.org as the truth.

I also got a laugh out of the whole "people who vote left are more informed". So typical of the left. If you dont agree one hundred percent with them, you are an idiot.

I have said many many times that I am probably more a libertarian thanb anything else. I am tired of religious conservatives trying to leglislate my personal life and I am very tired of Liberals trying to legislate pocket book. I am tired of my money supporting a bunch of bullshit feel good social programs. And Bush has not been any better than Clinton. And Kerry will not be any worse than Bush, accept maybe on terrorism. American Politics are a joke.

Coltllo, Curchill was responsible for the quote you posted above. He also once said something to the effect of.

" The drawback of capitalism is the unequal distribution of wealth. The drawback of socialism is the equal distribution of misery"

Of course he was less informed.

Batster
Touche
(If I can use a french word to describe your brilliant insights WITHOUT anyone accusing me of being a Francosympathizer)
PS
Does anyone think the French will survive their current U.N. scandal?

Yes. But the UN will never be the same.

I have a lot more to say in this thread that I have not gotten around to yet, but for now I just have a short rant I found on Bartcop.com.

It's a lot more limited and pointed than I would normally write, but I agree with his point and think his rant is pretty amusing.

http://www.bartcop.com/libmedia.htm