The GOP & The Press [1] - Acknowledge The Problem
By Martin A. Knight Posted in Republicans | Spotlight Blogs — Comments (163) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Republicans, from the rank and file all the way to the Chairman of the Republican National Committee (with the possible exception of "Republicans" like Lincoln Chaffee, Sarah Chamberlain Resnick and David Gergen) know that the Press as an institution leans sharply to the Left, but it is rare to find the elected Republican official who acknowledges it, especially during a campaign. The difference between knowing and acknowledging and the consequences of forgetting this distinction was very well illustrated by the George Allen campaign.
Personally, I find it very hard to believe that any high-profile Republican (especially the RNC Chairman) would need Jed Babbin to tell him/her that the supposedly neutral Fourth Estate is actually anything but. That the nation's news media is 90+% liberal is not a view that is just held by some wierd fringe of the GOP (or even just Republicans for that matter). This is something that has been documented repeatedly for over two to three decades. And for Republicans, and Conservatives in general (including myself), the debate on this issue has long been, for all intents and purposes, over.
Read on . . .
To quote Peter Robinson from all the way back in 2000; "... the liberal press is no mere chimera of the Republican imagination. It exists." Note that Robinson, a former speechwriter for Ronald Reagan (and current Dartmouth trustee) quotes Newt Gingrich, Pete Wilson and George H. W. Bush in his article - all agreeing to the same thing; the media is biased and biased strongly to the Left. You do not get any deeper in the Republican mainstream; a former President, Governor and Senator, and Speaker of the House.
Which is why I thought the beginning of this 11/08/2006 article by Noel Sheppard over at the American Thinker was so ... well, pathetic;
Can you imagine this election with an evenhanded media? The GOP would still be in control of Congress.
This may be true, even if one takes into consideration the GOP's fecklessness throughout the 109th Congress ... but it does not make the Democrats' victory any less legitimate. By and large Republicans did absolutely nothing about it when they had the chance. Now it is too late and poor form to complain. It is a poor General who goes into battle knowing what forces are arrayed against him, completely failing to come up with a battleplan that takes them into account, and then seeking refuge in the excuse that they were arrayed just so. That the media is not evenhanded is not exactly news within Republican and Conservative circles. Yet virtually every single election finds Republicans being caught wrong-footed by the flurry of October Surprises, quotes taken completely out of context, smears on front pages, allegations in headlines, etc.
Less than a month to election day, Allen was still up in the polls but as John J. Miller over at NRO noted with increasing alarm, the Allen campaign was inexplicably failing to take the story out of the realm of "macaca" and back into the realm of policy. It was instead trying to attack Jim Webb for derogatory writings about women in the military from the 1980s, his use of the 'N' word and the rather ... interesting sexual practices and abilities of the characters in Webb's novels. This may be understandable in that George Allen had just spent the last two months trying to survive one of the most brutal, sophisticated and (I must say) brilliantly executed character assasination campaigns in modern American political history.
If what happened to George Allen after his rather innocuous "macaca" gaffe seems so familiar to Republicans, it is because they have seen it before. It is a close cousin to what we call Borking. Only now with the advent of the Internet and the Leftosphere, the character assasination campaigns that marked the Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, John Ashcroft, Charles Pickering, William Pryor, John Roberts, John Bolton and Samuel Alito confirmation battles are going to be a constant feature of future election campaigns for public office now that it has proven so very effective against George Allen - six weeks to election day, no one was prepared to bet that George Allen would be clearing out his office in Washington DC and headed back to private life.
A successful Borking requires the accusations and allegations levelled against the target making their way into the front pages and headlines of major newspapers, and from there into the highlight reels and news programs of the broadcast media. The target must find himself being introduced (or re-introduced) to his fellow Americans as a reprobate of some sort i.e. a racist, misogynist, deviant, thief, etc. The involvement of the news media in pushing this new perspective of a target is essential. This is the reason Borking remains an exclusively liberal endeavor; a successful Borking must involve a co-operative Fourth Estate to pull off.
This is the reason why I have no doubt that no matter how badly or unfairly Democrats personally attack, denigrate and utilize the Senate's parliamentary rules to deny Republican judicial nominees a vote on the Senate floor, Republicans will never be able to do the same to a Democrat nominee to the Supreme Court, even if the nominee is as certifiable as Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit. The editors and reporters of the Washington Post and the New York Times may be more than willing to publish an article on the front page of their papers based on the word of a single anonymous source that a Republican nominee/candidate took numerous bribes, regularly beat his late wife or had burnt a cross in the front lawn of an interracial couple's home, but for them to print a similar story about a Democrat is an entirely different issue.
It would require that the source forgo anonymity to give the target a fair chance to respond, verification that the source is not and has never been a Republican, solid proof that he has indeed recently voted or contributed to a sufficiently liberal Democrat (neither Zell Miller nor Ben Nelson would count) to prove his "Independence", and furthermore has no discernible reason for any personal animus towards the nominee. It would also require two or more additional non-anonymous witnesses who can corroborate the first witness' story, both of whom must also pass the test of not being or ever having been Republicans and who can provide evidence of recent contributions or some other evidence to show that they have recently voted for a sufficiently liberal Democrat as proof of "Independence". Documentary proof, such as police reports, contemporary news articles, court documents and if possible tape/video would also be necessary for the story to go forward.
In other words, when a Democrat is involved, journalists remember to practice journalism. They will not print unfalsifiable (he said/she said and hearsay) charges and essentially demand that the candidate prove a negative on the front page. When it is a Democrat, they remember that such accusations when given space on the front page have the power to permanently damage lives and reputations, so it is important that they make sure that they are not just regurgitating partisan spin from the opposition and that everything they print is accurate in fact and context.
But this only applies to Democrats. For example, a New York Times reporter would support the notion that the Right-leaning Federalist Society and/or Heritage Foundation simply cannot be trusted to fairly assess a Democrat candidate or nominee's fitness for office. However, that same New York Times reporter holds on to the belief that the "non-partisan" People for the American Way, National Organization for Women, Alliance for Justice, etc. can, of course be counted on to dispassionately examine a Republican's record and provide a well-reasoned and balanced judgment.
If George Allen had ever written a scene in a novel in which a father places the penis of his minor child into his mouth (for whatever reason), featured a female characters with names like "Nurse Goodbody", described in great detail a stripper cutting a banana into neat slices with her vaginal muscles, and/or the frequent and free use of the 'N' word, no amount of explaining that he was writing fiction (or depicting what he had observed in some part of the world) would have spared him from the large number of articles on front pages and headlines "exploring" whether or not his writings should render him unfit to be Virginia's representative in the United States Senate. Chances are that they might even feature "analyses" of his writings by psychologists (all of whom would be Democrats though that would not be indicated) who would duly inform the Virginia electorate that there just might be an undercurrent of racism and misogyny in Allen's psyche as revealed by his written work, etc.
George Allen's campaign failed to realize that just because he would have been crucified if he had been the one who had written any of the above did not mean that a Democrat who actually did so would suffer the same fate; the standard of proof necessary to indict a Republican as a moral and ethical reprobate in much of the Fourth Estate is significantly lower than that necessary to indict a Democrat who does the exact same thing. Witness the difference between the treatment meted out to Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd; the former Grand Kleagle (senior recruiter) of the Ku Klux Klan is the "Conscience of the Senate" while the other, who incidentally happens to be the very first Southern Senator to hire black members of staff constantly has his face rubbed in his racist past even after his death.
Not only are a Democrat's explanations, protests and statements of contrition given more weight, the manner and method of the coverage and investigation of the story would differ as well. When it comes to the former (coverage), the difference could be seven days on the front page (Republican) and repeated references thereafter, versus two days on page A17 (Democrat) and silence until after election day. When it comes to the latter (investigation), the difference could be respecting a candidate's privacy (Democrat), and suing to have a judge unseal divorce records over the protests of both the candidate and his ex-wife (Republican).
The fact is, to quote Greg Sargent, one of the LA Times' large stable of liberal columnists; "political reporters love to write about politics as if they are merely disinterested observers of political events and the public's perceptions of them, when in fact they play a very key role in shaping those events and perceptions." Sargent is right; and they shape those events and perceptions so that they align more with their own beliefs and perspectives. Now consider that Maria Arana, an editor at the Washington Post, had this to say about her colleagues at her newspaper; "The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness ... If you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat. I've been in communal gatherings at the Post, watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democratic candidates."
Taking these two statements together as true - and they are, the remarkably active part played by the Washington Post (and most of Virginia's biggest newspapers) in the character assasination campaign to torpedo George Allen's re-election was then only to be expected. The Allen campaign may have known that none of the Washington Post reporters covering the race was ever likely to vote for him, but they simply were not cognizant (as far as I could see) of what this meant in practical terms - there would be a serious difference in the way the institutionally favored candidate and his opponent are treated that will, if not neutalized, on balance influence the election in favor of the former. If George Allen had taken note of this from the very beginning of his campaign, then it is likely his campaign would have been better prepared in some way or other, and he would be returning to the Senate in 2007.
My own opinion was that he should have faced the issue head-on with a nice, brutal prime time speech, and decisively killed the narrative being sold by the Democrats and their friends in the Fourth Estate that he had a "race problem."
Either way, it should be noted that there was no conspiracy. Despite obviously strong contacts with people within the Virginia Democrat Party's campaign infrastructure, I'm certain the Washington Post did not confer with the Webb Campaign on how to cover the race or work on talking points together. It's simply that the adage that "personnel is policy" once again proved itself true. It is not necessary to tell the staff of a newspaper that you want political stories slanted to the Right or Left, all you need do to ensure that a news outlet slants stories to favor one side or the other is to make sure that 85-90% of your reporting and editorial staff all lean in the direction you want. Whether or not the owners of the Washington Post, New York Times, Houston Chronicle, Philadelphia Inquirer, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Chicago Tribune, CNN, CBS, ABC, etc. intended it or not, all these (and other) major Fourth Estate institutions are overwhelmingly liberal and Democrat from top to bottom ... and it shows.
This is not to whine and/or deny the fact that the GOP ran a horrible campaign and frittered away the expanded majority they had in the 109th Congress. That must be faced up to. But, at the same time, we need to fully appreciate the fact that the Democrats would not have had such a banner election night (even with all the ammunition the GOP itself so helpfully provided them i.e. Cunningham, Ney, Sherwood, Foley, Dennis Hastert leaping to William Jefferson's aid, etc.) without the considerable assistance they got from the most prestigious and influential institutions of the nation's supposedly independent Fourth Estate over the past two years. The Republican Party just went through an election cycle having to contend with two opponents working in virtual tandem with each other; the Democrats on one side and the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, the Associated Press, CBS, ABC, Time, Newsweek, etc. on the other.
The Republican Party, as a whole, needs to acknowledge the fact that the nation's Fourth Estate, the primary conduit through which the American people get most of their information on politics, policy and politicians, is overwhelmingly staffed by people sympathetic to and often formerly (and even currently) actively part of the other side of the aisle. The GOP needs to realize that this has very serious implications for the Party's future that needs to recognize and attended to.
The endpoint is this; so long as the GOP continues assisting the Press in maintaining the polite fiction that the MSM in America is able to fairly referee the competition between the two major parties in American politics, we are far more likely to experience another forty years in the wilderness than another twelve years in the majority.
- PS: I have not discontinued "The Way Back To The Majority" series
It boggles me too that Reps don't really map out their strategy factoring in the liberal bias MSM. They say certain things to the same MSM then wonder why the press bashes them.
Bernie Goldberg wrote a good book about the left wing MSM called "Bias".
Conservatives need to address the public more directly and less through the biased filter of MSM reporters.
Bush has hurt himself badly for not going on the air on TV and Radio every week or every night as needed to communicate directly to the people in the past several years. Bush talking directly gets his point across even though he isn't a "polished speaker" that the left just loves. Instead Bush's remarks get distorted and bashed when fed through the biased MSM grinder. MSM can no longer report the news. They think the American public needs to be fed pre-chewed news to understand what is going on. I can't believe savvy Republican/conservative politicals don't do more to counteract.
Although blogs, talk radio have grown rapidly it is still a fact the MSM is the giant and will be for some time. This needs to be attacked head on for real long term progress to be made.
On a good note I read my local notoriously biased paper Minneapolis Star Tribune was recently sold for $500million less. A 50% off sale. ha ha. Of course they'll blame alternative media blah blah blah which is a big factor but they'd never acknowledge their biased reporting that caused many people like me to cancel forever.
If you always find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be rapidly sliding down your own slippery slope to irrelevance. -CommonCents
Although I think you underestimate the extent to which some Republicans are happy with the way things are. There is no shortage of people within the GOP who are only too happy to go along with the media storyline about how racist/corrupt we are.
McCain, Hagel, Specter, oh heck most of the Senate...
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
...when you have RNC chair Mehlman apologizing for the 'Southern Strategy', thus lending credence to the bogus leftist idea that there was something wrong in Republicans pointing out to Southern voters just how far left the Democrats had moved.
One cannot point to any legislation or act that paid hommage to any segregationist law or policy or idea by the GOP. none
amen Aurelian
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008
Evil men hide from the truth, but good men stand upon it.
I think there has always been media bias, but they have taken it to a whole new level over the past few years. I thought that after they failed to defeat Bush in 2004 they might moderate a little. But they have actually gotten worse, and I think many Republicans were still operating on the assumption that they were up against the older style subtle bias. The attacks on Republicans in the media made the attacks by the Democrats seem restrained by comparision. The WaPo read like a fringe lefty blog where Allen was concerned.
Given what I see in the MSM day in and day out I'm amazed that we are even competitive with the Democrats.
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008
And sent the reply.
Sorry for the delay.
The Christmas holiday was crazy (in a good way) and now I'm preparing for the Eid.
that the right thinks the media leans Left while the Left thinks the media leans Right. And both complain mightily, almost convincing themselves that the reason the voters edo not buy into their positions hook line and sinker is because they are brainwashed by the media.
Almost I could be persuaded that the media is doing something right if everyone hates them.
Except of course I pay heed to the media too and they aren't really doing much right.
But the problem is not really bias one way or the other. The problem is poor quality, sensationalism, and the appeal to the lowest common intelligence of the public.
The problem is poor quality, sensationalism, and the appeal to the lowest common intelligence...
In other words, the problem is that the main stream media is biased to left.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
and they do a slap-dash hatchet job against just about anyone in power. They perceive themselves after all as a Fourth Estate of governance and define their job as tearing down in public opinion the other "estates". You only see this when it affects conservatives; the liberals only see it when it affects liberals. I see it going both ways. And I really wouldn't mind that much since it's probably healthy to have the powerful taken down a few pegs, but the way it is done often hides important issues (both Left and Right have a legitimate complaint there) and emphasizes cult-of-personality type stuff to the detriment of serious thought.
This why I get almost no news from TV, and read a diversity of print sources anbd websites.
Point to all the Democrat's the media have taken down, the way they took down Allen.
Point to all the instances whene the media made up stories about Democrats, the way they make up stories about Republicans.
Point to all the times the media have turned a blind eye to GOP dirty tricks, the way they did for the Democrats with Foley.
You can't, and in some part of your mind you know it. But I guess if you want to keep up this "moderate" act you have say things like this.
can be found at Bob Somerby's site.
I'd say that the War on Gore was a bit more extensive than the trashing of Allen.
One example of a sorty about Democrats that was basicly made up by the media is the story that Naomi Wolf told Gore to wear earth tones.
This of course does not invalidate your point about what Aleks311 knows "in some part of his mind." I am not a telepath, so on that point I defer to your superior mind reading ability.
What you guys deliberately refuse to acknowledge is that Republicans would have preferred a 100 times to have received the type of coverage Gore got during the 2000 campaign than the one Bush was subjected to.
Gore was portrayed as someone who was so smart, he would have a problem "connecting" with the American public, who, according to conventional wisdom, did not like smart folks without an "Aw shucks" personality. Comics made fun of him for being robotic and stilted ... and quite frankly, he was.
Bush, on the other hand, was portrayed as stupid, ignorant and inexperienced, notwithstanding being a two-term governor of Texas. Even worse than that, he was also portrayed as being incorrigibly bloodthirsty because of Texas' death penalty laws.
I could go on, but I don't have the time.
So let's just take look at some of the damaging stories both candidates in 2000 had to contend with from the "straight down the middle" Press.
Al Gore
"Earth Tones"
"Robotic"
"Tends To Exaggerate"
George Bush
"James Byrd"
"DUI"
"Enjoys Signing Death Warrants"
"Ignorant & Stupid"
"Cocaine Use"
"Daddy's Boy"
"Dodged Vietnam"
"Corporate Stooge"
Focussing exclusively on stuff the Gore campaign, for whatever reason, thought was unfair is disingenuous. For a proper comparison, you need to look at both campaign's complaints.
premise that the press had it in for Clinton and by extension Gore ?
I'll have to take that with a grain of salt.
Of course one can find instances where the media attacks liberals. If you cannot see it is the exception rather than the rule you are either blind or you aren't looking.
In most cases when the media attacks a liberal it is for the gain of another liberal. Taking out Dean for Kerry etc...
Will Obama be taken down in favor of Hillary? That'll be a tough battle for the MSM crown.
If you always find yourself arguing the exceptions rather than the rule you just might be rapidly sliding down your own slippery slope to irrelevance. -CommonCents
but I got into this thread because it didn't seem to be so obvious to the person I was replying to.
You write that people who disagree with you are either blind or not looking, which could be true but is unlikely to persuade anyone. Somerby is willing to criticize the press even when the press coverage hurts Bush, as in the case of Joe Wilson and the famous 16 words. But it's possible that Somerby's political views (which are clearly to the left of center) make him more likely to notice cases where the victims of press malfeasance are Democrats. So let me ask you: is there a conservative equivalent of Somerby? Someone who sometimes criticizes the press for coverage which hurts Democrats, but who would agree with your assertion that such occurrences are more the exception that the rule?
The point is that if a person only complains about press coverage which is flawed in a way that hurts Republicans, it would seem likely that the individual is looking for cases where coverage hurts Republicans. Nothing wrong with that, but such a person wouldn't be expected to have a good idea of how balanced the press is because they haven't been looking. I am asking if there is someone on the Internet who has written enough about the media to make it clear that they have been looking, and who basicly agrees with you.
Here is an example he gives of the press "attacking" a Democrat.
RICH (page 132): Kerry was already proving a genius at self-destruction, handing the White House loaded weapons with which to mow him down. Just the day before Cheney’s speech, the Massachusetts senators had given what would prove an indelible response when asked to reconcile his vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq with his later vote against the 87-billion-dollar appropriation to pay for the war and Iraqi reconstruction. “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it,” Kerry said. Cheney, though not exactly a natural comedian, brought down the house at the Reagan library simply by repeating Kerry’s words and underlining them with a deadpan punch line, “It’s a true fact.”
That is Frank Rich of the New York Times he is quoting, a writer and a paper never before mistaken for part of the VRWC. The Howler (and you) seem to think that any criticism of any Democrat, no matter how justified, is plain evidence of right wing media bias, or at least of an objective media. Somerby seems to think that the role of the media is to defend Democrats from any criticism by Republicans. He argues here that Rich should have actually defended Kerry and attacked Bush. By this logic any reporter who complained about Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" is just a right wing stooge.
But nobody here is saying that the media may never criticise a Republican under any circumstances. We are pointing out the blindingly obvious fact that they attack Republicans far more harshly and far longer for things which they would never attack a Democrat for, and in some cases for things which are total fabrications. Contrast the medias treatment of Foley ( a pedophile!) with their glowing tributes to Studds (a pioneer).
I'll repeat my initial challenge which you ignored. Can you point to some instances where the press manufactured fraudlulent stories about Democrats, similar to the TANG memos or to the made-up stories about Bush Sr never having seen a check-out scanner? Can you point to some instances of the press cooperating with a right-wing smear campaign the way they did with the Democrats regarding Foley? Do you deny that the press have been caught pushing false stories on the Middle East over and over again, for instance the supposedly bombed ambulance in Lebabon?
Something like over 85% of the media are registered democrats. The bulk of the rest are independents.
So when the right says the media leans left they mean 85% percent of the time they are putting a knife in the rights guts. When the left says the media leans right they mean 15% of the time they aren't putting a knife in the rights guts.
What I would like to see is the media occasionally putting a knife in the lefts guts.
And if you doubt this I have two words for you, Mark Foley. Is there any doubt that it was a hatchet job to sit on his story till October ? If you say the media does the same to the left i have a few other names, Rahm Emanuel, Harry Reid, whitewater, whitehouse travel office,Murtha abscam.
My favorite example is the 2004 march New York Times. The economy had just added 350,000 new jobs. This was the first uptick since the recession of 2001. The democrats had been chanting a mantra of "Jobless Recovery". What did the Times print ? "Bonds down on jobs news"
Re: Something like over 85% of the media are registered democrats
But the owners tend toward conservatism and the GOP, at least economically (stereotypical "rich Repiblicans". See: Rupert Murdock). And he who has the gold makes the rules, as the saying goes.
is usually a Democrat. The very wealthy in this country lean pretty much to the left.
The owners don't lean toward conservatism. Unless you think Sulzberger is conservative, which is a possibility. The left thinks the NYT is part of the right-wing. Why is that?
But the owners tend toward conservatism and the GOP, at least economically (stereotypical "rich Repiblicans". See: Rupert Murdock).
No. That's wrong. And I believe the major reason you're pointing to Rupert Murdoch as your example is that he's the only one you can easily find. I'll give you the owners of the Washington Times and Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
But the rest?
Arthur Sulzburger, Sumner Redstone, Katherine Graham, Ted Turner, etc. owners of the nation's largest and most influential news media outlets in broadcast and print, usually tend to be pretty much decidedly on the Left.
But the owners tend toward conservatism ... he who has the gold makes the rules, as the saying goes.
And furthermore, I am aware that being a "moderate" usually means that you must affect the pose of being a cynic but in this case it's misapplied.
First of all, I find it hard to believe that newspaper owners spend their days sending instructions to their editors to demand that they spin the news in one direction or the other.
Second, for your assertion here to make sense you have to believe that most of the nation's journalists are so unprincipled that they would constantly rewrite stories everyday to please the boss even if it would end being something that is not true.
Sorry. But no.
not being able to acknowledge that the media is way left biased is indicative of either being immersed in full denial of reality or a deficiency in native intelligence making you physically unable comprehend and retain the empirical proof that is continually produced by independent media studies. Which is it with you?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
every week i see bill maher attack the media for being bias and unfair, even tho his show is too; but atleast he is as quick to bash a dem as fast a republican
personally i find the msm swinging whatever side that is going to generate the most money above all.
and for that source (media research central) that of 85% of journalists is liberal seems questionable, especially since their about page basically says that they are conservatives attacking the liberal media and using fnc as sources
if cnn is liberal, then why do they show a ridicious piece of linking obama to the "axis of evil" based on his style of clothing?
It's because you're a liberal ...
Heck, according to Dan Rather, the New York Times editorial page is straight down the middle.
If you believe that it is objectively true that ...
[1] Bush knew that Iraq did not have WMDs but he lied (or exaggerated) about it anyway.
[2] The Bush White House leaked Valerie Plame's top-secret identity.
[3] The economy is "troubled" because of things like "income inequality", etc.
[4] Tax cuts and defense spending cause deficits.
[5] Samuel Alito is not qualified to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court.
[6] Bush went AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard in the 1970s.
[7] Bush somehow did not exert himself when Katrina hit or else New Orleans would have been completely evacuated within 24 hours.
[8] Bush caters too much to theocratically inclined social conservatives.
[9] Bush, through negligence or malevolence, let 9/11 happen.
[10] etc.
Well, of course, it's understandable that you see the media as being in the center or even tilting to the Right.
[Martin, please check your email, if you haven't already. Thanks, -blackhedd]
Let's see, to a first approximation, television news lives by selling commercial time to people who want to sell prescription drugs and automobiles to people who are over 60 years of age. On the Sunday morning talk shows, the customers are companies that live off public spending and want to send love letters to Congresscritters. Last time I checked, most journalists think automobiles will destroy the earth through climate change, the pharma industry is in league with the Devil, and the Republican-controlled Congress is a sinkhole of corruption and sexual-abuse.
Newspapers live primarily by selling local classified advertising. So far as I've been able to tell, journalists are agnostic on the subject of people buying and selling used stuff and looking for roommates.
Where's the linkage? Why exactly do liberals believe that journalists have an anti-liberal bias just because they work for business corporations?
I personally know some very senior managers in the media business, on both the business and the content side. They're very scrupulous about keeping the two sides of the house separate.
that is going to generate the most money above all.
I've got it! Owners tell their reporters and editors to slant the news to maximize profits! What a concept. What utter bull**it based on public knowledge that is easy to find.
NYT/Boston Globe. Stock price has been tanking for the last four years. Their profitability is zip. The only reason "Pinch the Wonder Boy" still has his job is because the Times has a two tiered stock and the voting shares are held by the Sultzberger family. The institutional owners of the non-voting shares are in open revolt, they just can't do anything.
LAT. Part of the Chicago Tribune family of companies. Circulation is down about 15% over the last few years (I don't have the exact numbers handy but they are readily available if you want them). The Times was very profitable before the Tribune bought it, it has a virtual lock on LA newspaper sales. Major advertisers just announced they want to renegotiate their rates (downward) because of the huge circulation losses. On top of losing money last year, this won't make their financial sheet any better.
Minneapolis Star-Trib Arguably even more liberal than the ones noted above. Just sold for $500 MILLION less than the asking price. Circulation is in the tank.
Network News Operations. Once, the flagships of profitability for CBS, NBC and ABC, none now make money. Miss Katie was brought into CBS to turn around their fortunes and their last ratings showed no improvement. And no change in market for the three combined.
CNN/MSNBC. Losing money. Losing a lot of money.
Your little rant about the percentage of journalists ignores the fact that journalists SELF IDENTIFY at rates higher than 85% as either "liberal" or "Democrat".
And on a side note use a grammar check or learn to write, and your little friends may enjoy your text message style but we're grown ups here. Use the shift key.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Trib Co. is going to unload the LAT. There's been a ferocious internal controversy about the future of that property for quite some time now.
They approached the previous owner (it was a family company) and have been trying to work something our forever. I doubt that will fly unless their circulation continues it's current spiral and they just give it back.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
...because I know some of the people involved. But some of them (including the Chandlers that you mention) are still strongly committed to print as a business in more or less its current form. I have no idea why David Geffen wants to own the LAT. He sure unloaded some beautiful art to raise cash recently. (Got a heck of a price, too.)
And to make this relevant to the discussion: Geffen is a firebreathing Hollywood lefty. Let's see what our liberal friends will say about media bias if he takes over the LAT.
soapboxes are expensive these days.
With respect to the Chandlers, I don't know much about them but my impression is that they are good business people and generally good people. I don't know if they will have much of an impact on the Times should they get it back, but at least I suspect it will start making money again.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I just remembered! Last year the Trib actually admitted (in more than 25 words) that the editorial pages were hopelessly biased. They replaced Robert Scheer with Jonah Goldberg in an attempt to balance their oped page. Scheer had a fit and was going to sue them, the SF Chronicle finally picked him up and I think he quietly went away.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
doesn't mean that these companies aren't trying to max out profits
as far the survey results (referring mostly to the first survey). i find it questionable because the site is biased. also who did they sent the survey too; meaning what percent of msm journalists and did they only send that survey to known liberal journalists? where is the documentation of the survey procedure methods?
another thing to consider is this is self-confessed biased site, and are they withholding evidence suggesting that the media is leaning towards the right.
what i really what to see is a study of major articles and how do they lean, not so much the journalists themselves.
Check out this study peer reviewed and accepted by a major academic economics journal:
http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf
And regarding the compostion of the MSM press corps, this interview with liberal (former) WaPo journalist Thomas Edsall.
http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=2a63c078...
"HH: It’s transparent at least. Everyone has bias. I agree with that. Everyone’s got bias.
TE: It’s transparent. Okay, that I would agree. And I agree that whatever you want to call it, mainstream media, presents itself as unbiased, when in fact, there are built into it, many biases, and they are overwhelmingly to the left.
HH: Well, that’s very candid.
snip
HH: He probably is a Republican. But given that number of reporters out there, is it ten to one Democrat to Republican? Twenty to one Democrat to Republican?
TE: It’s probably in the range of 15-25:1 Democrat."
John E.
The very fact that a reporter says the media is biased to the left proves that the media is not biased to the left, but to the right!
Psychosis - a loss of contact with reality, typically including delusions (false ideas about what is taking place or who one is) and hallucinations (seeing or hearing things which aren't there).
peer reviewed studies. You won't accept the opinion of people who have worked in the MSM for years. You won't accept overwhelming anecdotal evidence based on headlines, based on story lines, based on the stories that are run and based on the reporters and editors party self-identification.
Can you perchance provide some type of evidence of MSM bias to the right? And please don't try and push Whitewater - that was blown off by the MSM as a story to investigate, as was HRC's cattle trading success, as were the allegations of sexual misconduct and rape against WJC.
Looking forward to reading your next post.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I think it is obvious that those on the left will always
- a) not believe the media is biased to the left; or
- b) never admit such if they did believe it.
Point b is pretty self-explanatory, so I won't bother with it.
Point a, is more interesting to me, for a number of reasons.
For instance, I can understand how someone far, far to the left would not believe in leftward media bias, b/c in their view, the media is still too far to the "right" b/c:
- a) media is owned by corporations, who are (in their world-view) "evil" and "right-wing" by their very nature and thus mainstream media cannot, but its very nature, lean left [this overlooks the fact that the editors and reporters - those investigating and writing the stories and deciding what gets printed lean overwhelmingly left, but no one ever said liberals had logic on their side];
- b) the farther left’s view of the world is warped by their own bias. For instance, they believe that John Edwards is a "moderate". They believe the political center, or moderation, is much, much further to the left than it is in reality, and thus believe that when news stories are not sufficiently slanted toward portraying conservatives as evil, pro-lifers as crazy, and opposition to universal health care as simply wrong, then the media MUST be biased to the right. When you accept certain premises as "fact" rather than opinion - such as, for instance, that global warming is caused almost exclusively by man and Kyoto would solve global warming - then any news reporting that fails to adhere to this "factual" premise is then seen as being biased to the "right." Thus, those to the left of any conservative democrat will actually believe - rather than just claim to believe - that the media is either unbiased, or biased to the "right." What they actually mean by the “right”, however, is really still left of center in the actuality of American politics. Unless and until the media reports everything from a pure socialist viewpoint, these people will believe the media is either “neutral” or “rightward leaning.”
It is the people on the left who are more moderate that I find hard to understand why they cannot believe the media is generally biased to the left. After all, the media self-identifies in poll after poll as being liberal. The left believes that every endeavor of man is tainted by prejudice and bias, to the extent that they constantly attempt to expand anti-discrimination laws to include ever more victim groups. Indeed, the left consistently lectures about unconscious bias and institutional bias in regards to every other facet of American life (the S.A.T. is biased against blacks, police are biased against minorities, etc., etc.), all requiring drastic action to combat. The left has made a cult of "diversity" to try to combat this alleged institutional bias they see everywhere in life.
And yet, they believe that the media is the one institution that is immune to this. The left instead believes that an institution that self-identifies as at least 80% liberal can simply avoid any bias in its work and day-to-day activities. That, I find disingenuous at best.
And the examples and admissions by media are legion demonstrating a leftward bias. This is not to say that media is never unfair to the left, or never goes after those on the left. It is to say that the instances are very uneven between left and right. Nor is it even claiming that it is a thought-out conspiracy by the left. It is simply stating that people’s, reporters included, political biases will consciously or unconsciously, affect how the reporter decides what to investigate/report, who they decide to interview, how they decide to investigate, how they decide to actually report and what they decide to print. For instance, when deciding what “independent” group to seek an opinion of a piece of legislation - will the reporter go to the ACLU or to the Heritage Foundation? When deciding what republican to seek comment from on the President’s policy - will they go to Rick Santorum or Chaffee? When they have two stories to chose going after a) the corrupt republican congressman or the corrupt democrat congressman - which do they pursue before the election, when they only have time to cover one?
I can open a mainstream paper any day of the week and find a politician or other person or institution labeled as "extreme-conservative", "extreme right-wing", or "right-wing". I cannot recall seeing anyone labeled "extreme liberal", "extreme left wing", or even "left wing". Indeed, even someone as far left as Ted Kennedy is rarely labeled as liberal. If we are to believe the press, the democrat party is made up entirely of moderates and liberal activist groups are all "non partisan" or "independent"; while conservative activist groups are all "right wing" or "conservative".
But ... how dare you!?
You, smagar and buckeye basically just wrote the next part of my series! And y'all did it less long-windedly.
But I remain undaunted! Prepare to be extensively cited!
feel free to quote at length.
I have always been perplexed as to why we on the right are so surprised to find the left fight vehemently against the idea that the press is biased. Obviously, it suits their purposes for the vast majority of America to believe that the press is neutral. Why on earth would any leftist ever admit to leftward media bias? Obviously, we would love to see the honesty and feel vindicated, but it is never going to happen. After all, if the situation were reversed and the media was biased toward conservatives, would we admit it? I know we would like to believe that intellectual honesty would make us admit it, but would we forego such a strong advantage in pushing forard our policies?
Which is why we have to keep pointing it out and get the message to the public, so that the public makes the necessary adjustments when receiving mainstream media reporting.
I know that some people, even some on the right (e.g., Rich Lowry) think of this as whining, but can you imagine how much further and openly slanted to the left the media would be were it not for conservatives challenging the media and calling them on it?
- GB
Though I don't buy for a second that the media is just as hard on Democrats as they are Republicans, I will say that the mainstream media's leftwing bias is seen even more so with regard to issues, and I can't see how anyone can deny that.
On immigration, the media is hopelessly biased in favor of amnesty, and unending mass legal immigration. Individual immigrant stories almost always run towards the sob-story angle, and when stories are done about criminal acts committed by immigrants, the fact that they are immigrants rarely gets mentioned. Few stories are complete without the standard platitudes.
On the hot-button social issues like marriage and abortion, the media has clearly chosen sides.
When talking about the Sup Court, its common to see the conservatives on the court presented as weirdo nuts, while the moderates are presented as mainstream conservatives, and the liberals are called moderates.
And can you recall a conservative Republican ever getting the fawning attention that greets Hillary and Obama when they do the talk show circuit?
Martin, this is an excellent article. But, we've heard all this before. I will concede that the media really took the gloves off for this election. Besides the WaPo war on Allen, I'm reminded of the "Broken Government" series that CNN ran prominently right before the election.
I want the President and the GOP to adopt a combative stance for the next two years. Begin preparatory fires right now for the next elections. The President, for his part, should push issues designed to make the Dems look bad. (One suggestion: a national voter ID law, to cut down on voter fraud. Make the Dems explain to the American people why an idea that's good enough for Mexico isn't good enough for the USA.) Face it--we're two years away from a Presidential election where there's no sitting VP/other heir apparent, and the other party just wrested control of Congress. Dubya isn't going to have much success with any major legislative initiatives. He might as well use the bully pulpit to soften up the Dems for 2008.
As for the press, the Bush Administration should adopt an unofficial-but-obvious stance that the MSM is openly hostile to the Administration, and then act accordingly. If the press isn't playing fair and objective as it's supposed to, then why can't the White House ignore its "duty" to treat them with respect.
Tony Snow, the most visible press voice for the White House, should pick and pick and pick at the White House press corps. When they get snotty, he should hit them with both barrels. He should ask embarassing questions designed to put the reporters on the spot. ("David, aren't you concerned that the relentlessly-negative tone of NBC reporting is actually inspiring the jihadhis to fight harder? That it's actually making Iraq more dangerous, both for our troops and innocent Iraqi citizens?") Create an environment where the press secretary zings the media elite snobs. Wait, you say--the MSM will never report it? No, they won't. But, blogs and YouTube certainly will!
The President and VP can get in the act, too. Dubya can give speeches where he reads accounts from soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan, who complain that the media overemphasizes the bad, underemphasizes the good, and thus makes winning this war a lot harder to accomplish.
What will the MSM do if the perception begins to take hold in American society that reporters and editors are a different species than you and I. A species that really doesn't care if America wins this war, or if their reporting makes it more likely that US soldiers and Iraqi citizens will be killed or wounded? A species that doesn't mind if their work inflames jihadhis, and in so doing make it much harder for moderate Muslims to fight for their faith?
The President and his Administration have 24/7 access to a microphone with worldwide reach. Perhaps GWB should administer some payback, and do his best to stain the MSM's public image.
Will the MSM get mad? You bet. But, how much madder can they get? How much more biased can they be? For years they've knows that conservatives view the MSM as biased. Bias came out in 2001. What has changed within the MSM? Not much. We've asked them to change, and we have their answer. Martin is right in telling all of us to recognize that.
They don't want to change. They want to fight.
Fine, then. Let's stop fooling ourselves. Let's fight. And, this comment to Martin's fine diary is one suggestion on how we might intensify our fight back.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
which is what I was trying to say in my post below while you were writing yours. It's a lot different now and we better realize that real. We've been banking on the press losing their monopoly and the new media doing it for us for too long. They don't need a monopoly to control 55% of the market which is all they need to win an election.
I will concede that the media really took the gloves off for this election. Besides the WaPo war on Allen, I'm reminded of the "Broken Government" series that CNN ran prominently right before the election.
Journalism today is learned behavior. They were over-the-top left-wing crazy throughout this election cycle, and they got the results they wanted...the Dems won both houses. The next election cycle will be UNBELIEVABLE in its leftiness. The media will be SO over-the-top, that even the "peasants" will notice. I predict, that the media bias will be so blatent in 2008 that even the electorate, which usually can't even NAME a candidate until three weeks before the election, will notice, and react!
Not necessarily because you're wrong ... but because this is the exact same argument used to justify the "Let's Wait For Them To Implode" strategy; they'll be so biased next time people are going to notice and the good times will roll!
So ... the question is; are you willing to bet what you say will happen, will happen the way you think it will?
I am not in any way advocating sitting back and doing nothing. You should know better than that from reading my posts over the past year.
I am all for pointing out left-wing bias, and do every cahnce I get. We intend to devote a section of our new website to "Under The Rock" uncovering media bias.
What I AM saying, however, is that nothing you or I do will stem the tide of left-leaning bias the MSM will throw out during the '08 campaign. It will be SO over-the-top that "hardly" anyone will not be forced to admit it. Unable to contain their venom, the left will create a backlash that WE intend to aid!
I do want to stress that if we don't deal with this issue, 2008 will be rough sledding as well. Although the bias has been there as long as I've been paying attention (Rush since the Bush 41 and WFB before that), I think it's gotten particularly bad in the past two years and will continue to worsen in the years ahead. The thing is Rush nails it with the "Drive By Media" concept in that there is something different going on as compared to the days of Bork, Thomas and others.
I think two things have manifested themselves in recent years; one, the media's impatience of letting their natural order of things restore themselves with the Dems in charge and their reaction to the new media. After 1994 the press seemed to believe what happened was an anomaly and the natural order of Dems controlling the beltway would return on its own. As time passed and the GOP solidified its majorities, particularly with gains in 2002 and 2004 the press became more emboldened in their biased coverage, moving it to non-stop status. Add to that their belief someone needed to balance Rush, the blogs, talk radio in general and in their minds Fox News, and you got an even more emboldened press that made the days of Bork seem somewhat tame.
To me it was really first seen in the reaction to Katrina. This was the first major post 2004 news event other than Iraq. It became apparent all the coverage for Katrina was going to be like that of Iraq, "how does this damage Bush and the Republicans"? Or more specifically, how can we use this to damage Bush and the Republicans in the 24X7 news cycle? Hence, 100,000 dead, murderous rampages in the Super Dome and a President aloof to it all because he doesn't care about black people. It became apparent to me at the time every news story from that day forward in August 2005 was going to be through the prism of how does this make the Republicans incompetent and corrupt, which ironically was the Democrat Party's declared campaign strategy? The pinnacle of it all came in the one sided speculative Foley coverage and Allen character assassination.
What the press has realized is although they no longer have a monopoly on information they do have control of what is the "public domain" for 60% of the country. Whereas in the past they would go on biased benders come election time or other needed hit job (Supreme Court for example), only to tone it down afterward to regain some credibility, they now seem willing to be the balance, in their minds, to Fox News, Rush, the blogs and everyone else on an ongoing basis. The false realities paraded for Katrina, Iraq, and the Bush economy are the kind of things we will continue to see in the future. They've always done these false realities but now their with more intensity than ever and not stop, and they're swinging the independent vote more than ever. It's almost as if the independents are saying, "enough, if we put the Dems in charge can the culture that's driven by the media go back to being happy again? We want the one goods news story after another about the economy and peace around the world like we had in the 90s."
But I don't think the GOP has begun to realize the gravity of this. There seems to be an attitude of "the bias has always been there and we'll deal with it in the future the same way we dealt with it in the past". They next Republican candidate will be able to pull it off fur us where Bush couldn't. I think one example is the idea that Brownback is going to get to define himself to the public on his terms and not the MSM's terms without some major breakthrough in communication strategy. That his big hearted outreach to Africa and the downtrodden as a Catholic will blunt criticism from liberals that he's cold hearted, like it did for Santorum and Bush so well.
In addition, I keep hearing how the MSM is imploding, but when are they going to finally going to implode? I think they've already imploded for 40% of the country but as long as they're the center of everyone's universe; the Sunday shows, the Wash Post, the NY Times and the rest they'll continue to collect the advertising dollars they need to subsidize their operations to influence the remaining 60%. I've often asked myself, "what do Republicans even gain by going on the Sunday shows? Who do they win over?" The deck's already stacked and all they give Stephy, Russert and others with the exception of Fox News is the opportunity to make them look bad to swing voters. If they had checked out of those shows all together, exposing them for what they are, Democrat campaign operations, and communicated only through the new media channels who would they have really lost vote wise. If you ask me, the base is about all they got in 2006. Their polling numbers with independents are awful. But by showing up every Sunday, and having Rush cover the Drive-By-Media each and every day, and on and on they remain the center of the media universe and collect the advertising dollars to keep the operation going.
The majority of Americans don't trust the press and find them liberally biased. If a Republican candidate that has the trust of the public goes after them in an articulate, tactful and dignified manner, they could put them in their place and carry the day. I think back to Bush 41 nailing Rather back in 88. People loved it and et is what's going to have to happen. The Republican Party is going to have to stop genuflecting before the MSM. The old rules in dealing with the bias of the press no longer apply and will only lead to disaster. It's more than a George Bush communication problem and it's not the same old bias that's just more effective because Republicans have been "flat footed".
On a side note, I think the President gets a vote on any conservative Supreme Court nomination. The Democrats won't get away with blocking a floor vote on something as big as a Supreme Court nomination. The President will be able to demand a floor vote and get it regardless of his approval ratings. The Supreme Court is a lot more important than the Appellate Court nominations and the constant media coverage combined with public sentiment will result in a floor vote. That said, there are too many red state Democrat Senators who depend on the cover of the nominating committee keeping things bottled up because if it hits the floor they have to vote yes if they want to get reelected back home. That is whey the President will get a vote on Supreme Court nominees and why they'll be confirmed.
The majority of Americans don't trust the press and find them liberally biased. If a Republican candidate that has the trust of the public goes after them in an articulate, tactful and dignified manner, they could put them in their place and carry the day.
buckeye is right on in his post, when he points out that the MSM controls most of the media ground in this country. But, we have some high ground, too--the widespread distrust of the MSM elite. A subtle but sustained PR campaign against the MSM will, if nothing else, put them on the defensive. They'll have to spend time and energy convincing Americans that no, they really DO want us to win, and really DO care more for our soldiers and less for the approval of the Davos crowd. If the President puts them in a position where they have to sell themselves to the American people, then he's regained a large share of the initiative in public debate. And, he's got high ground (the Presidency's bully pulpit) that has enough command of the battlefield to pull it off.
The Republican Party is going to have to stop genuflecting before the MSM. The old rules in dealing with the bias of the press no longer apply and will only lead to disaster. It's more than a George Bush communication problem and it's not the same old bias that's just more effective because Republicans have been "flat footed".
The MSM is not going to change. They've made a calculated business and editorial decision that they're not interested in conservative readership. If the WaPo really cared about Republican MSM concerns, then explain the prominence Tom Toles and Dan Froomkin get in their paper. Explain an op-ed writer like Eugene Robinson, who exists to say snotty things about Republicans. Toles and Froomkin and Robinson are employed by the WaPo because they produce the kinds of opinions that the WaPo's target audience wants to hear.
We're not that target audience. The WaPo leadership has chosen, and they chose the other side. Our leadership needs to recognize that.
Now, the WaPo will trot out an ombundsman or a Howie Kurtz, who'll give a "critical self-review" about how the WaPo overstepped. (In fact, the WaPo has already had one of its own write that its Allen coverage gave the appearance of "piling on.") From that, hopeful GOP readers will take hope that the WaPo will become more balanced. Or, in the case of the Allen campaign, less openly and aggressively partisan.
But, guess what? Nothing will change. It will happen again in the next election. And the one after that.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008
To me it was really first seen in the reaction to Katrina. This was the first major post 2004 news event other than Iraq. It became apparent all the coverage for Katrina was going to be like that of Iraq, "how does this damage Bush and the Republicans"? Or more specifically, how can we use this to damage Bush and the Republicans in the 24X7 news cycle? Hence, 100,000 dead, murderous rampages in the Super Dome and a President aloof to it all because he doesn't care about black people.
Excellent point.
I specifically posted about this here in September last year.
I later made this point in another post on, of course, the GOP's communications problem;
Another example is Katrina. The conventional wisdom is that the Federal response was "bungled" and "slow". Not once has the White House seriously attempted to point out that the Federal government was conducting rescue operations within hours of the hurrican making landfall. Not once has the White House Press Secretary pointed out that with the transportation infrastructure of the area so damaged the logistics of getting aid to the area posed a far more serious problem than the Press was presenting to the American people.
An even today, the White House still refuses to see that allowing the Press the last word on Katrina is no different from letting the DNC version of the story being entered into the history books. A White House which took its communications with American people seriously would have set up a non-partisan commission of experts (ex-military, judges and career frontline first responders) to have carefully and soberly investigated what happened and not only informed Americans of the truth with all the benefits the truth affords and denied partisan reporters the cover necessary to let it stand for all eternity that the President dithered while people died in Louisiana.
As Aleks has ably demonstrated here, self-styled "moderates" have a phrase they love above all others. It is one, they believe, the use of, identifies them as being above the ideological and partisan fray and marks them as being people of greater insight and wisdom than the rest of us.
That phrase is "Both Sides." Whether the situation warrants it or not, people like Aleks, ZTN and Purple Vet would always deploy the phrase and act shocked that no one takes their view as being in any way objective, and that no one is really buying their claims to being in the "center".
Another key characteristic of "moderates" is that they are very dedicated to the notion that the Press is fair and balanced so I fully expected Aleks and Co. to quickly jump in here and state that from their "objective", "non-partisan", "moderate", "centrist", or "Registered Independent" perspective that the New York Times' reporting (for example) is "straight down the middle".
I also expected them to immediately try to soften the self-inflicted blow to their "non-partisan" credibility after making this fantastical claim by quickly offering the following such milquetoast substitute criticisms; the Press is "not punctual", "too corporate" (whatever that means), "lazy", "sensationalistic", "prone to grammatical errors", "not well-dressed", etc.
I'm not saying that none of this stuff is true. But it does not negate the fact that these folks are still very biased to the Left.
PS: Aleks ...
The Guardian in the United Kingdom is a very Left-leaning broadsheet - it actually admits as such that it does have such an ideological bent. In fact, a very well-known bit of conventional wisdom is that one can tell the politics of a British person simply by knowing his preferred broadsheet and tabloid. Right leaning voters tend to prefer The Telegraph and The Sun. Lefties take The Guardian and The Mirror.
Do you imagine therefore that The Guardian doesn't receive complaints from Labour Party members and MPs? Of course, it does. There are times it receives as many complaints from Labour as the Tories. But that still does not make The Guardian a "Both Sides" newspaper.
Capiche?
Just because I receive complaints from both sides doesn't mean I do not noticably favor one over the other.
The Guardian is up front and honest about its biases, as is the Telegraph, the Daily Mail and The Independent. It is the New York Times, the WaPo and the LAT that exist behind the bodyguard of lies called "objectivity".
Republicans must become unafraid of calling media bias day after day. When they do that, we will go a long, long way towards removing an arrow from the Democratic quiver.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
I don't understand why the GOP agrees to debates moderated by a single person in Jim Leher, who rarely sees fit to ask a question from a conservative point of view. In this case, I am tempted to believe that it results from the unintentional bias that Bernie Goldberg and others have spoken of, where the bias comes from the fact that all in the media basically think the same way and hold the same positions. So it occurs naturally to them to ask questions from a liberal point of view, that are designed to undermine basic conservative principles and assumptions, while it never occurs to them to do the same from the conservative perspective to liberal ideas.
I wish I had specifics at hand right now, but it was apparently so noticeable in 2000 that Saturday Night Live even spoofed how the questions were biased in favor of Gore. If a typically liberal show like that notices it, then you know there is something there.
Now to be fair I'll ask the same question of the other side...
Mr. Gore, why does half of America hate Mr. Bush so much?
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
--------------------Live free or die. Death is not the worst of evils.--------------------
for me, involved C-Span and Rush Limbaugh in the 90s. I would watch House/Senate proceedings incl floor speeches and other live news and/or political events and then compare (a) my impressions even then as Democrat Party official; (b) MSM coverage by CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN that was nearly identical in what they considered significant, what they left out, and the spin; and (c) How Rush Limbaugh covered the same in which he never left out what the Left deemed significant, but then covered the whole event citing what I had deemed significant and then giving his spin, which I, as a democrat, even then, agreed with as the main truths!!
There was no contest as to whose coverage was fair and comprehensive. It was like the MSM was afraid for the people to know that whole truth, even incl quotes from Democrats. It was like they were protecting them from their own liberalism, intuitively knowing that same would be rejected by the majority.
So they covered up the leftist stuff and spun the right to seem extreme based on some Politically correct supposed conventional wisdom that basically insulted average comment sense thinking people.
I.E. the MSNM hated the Truth which was most always on the Right!
I converted.
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
http://theminorityreportblog.blogspot.com/
Lots of people wrote at great length to speak of the dreaded MSM media bias.
Let me ask you guys a question. If you self-identify as someone who is Conservative wouldn't that make your views right of center? Wouldn't that make centrist views appear leftist to you?
I won't deny that the large media organizations such as the New York Times or WaPo probably lean a little to the Left. They are a product of their environment. Reporters are, for the most part, Northeast college educated upper-middle/upper class people. As such they generally hold the views that most of those types of people hold. Socially Liberal and economically Conservative. Not uber-Liberal on social issues. They aren't looking to change the world. But certainly they mostly are pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-affirmative action people. They are also not-Conservative on economic issues. They like lower taxes and support most mainstream theories on fiscal and monetary policies. They aren't hard right Libertarians about it but they favor the status quo and lower taxes for the most part.
There isn't any conspiracy or overt agenda. The simple truth is that reporters report based on their world view and to many of you that world view is Liberal.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
But anyone who says they are is a wingnut ?
But to take your own argument, you self identify as leaning left and you feel these organizations lean left, how would that look to someone self identifying as a moderate ?
I don't think someone is wingnut for accusing the media of bias.
I think it is often a copout that people like to use to avoid dealing with realities.
I don't know what you mean by moderate. Moderate what?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Because you are pretty much saying that only wingnuts are upset about the left bias to the media.
Your reply amplifies on the intent of the original post. You are saying that people who point out the lefts bias are using it as a copout.
First let me state that while I might briefly enjoy a right biased media, if for nothing else than shadenfraude of people I dislike, its not something I want. The incredible level of bias in the media has reached the point where its at the level of a national mental illness. We have the equivalent of seeing things that aren't there and hearing voices, and chewing off bits of ourselves because of the madness. The same would happen if the media became right biased.
Second when it comes to dealing with realities, the reality is that the media had become a problem for the nation. Realizing there is a problem is the first step to formulating a solution.
By moderate I would mean someone who scores within a given delta of the center on the various multi dimensional political quizes.
You are assigning that term. Not me.
The fact that you think that bias is so extreme as to be indicative of a national illness strikes me as damning towards your own view rather than the media itself.
Many of you continue to try and take the media out to the woodshed over Iraq because you feel they should be waving pom poms and shouting "Go team". That has never been the purpose of the media and the reality is that they are reporting the stories that people WANT to hear.
The REALITY is that compared to the free media from around the world the US media is pretty darn tame and Conservative. Yet you would have us condemn our media for not being Conservative enough to suit your tastes.
Can you provide the specific examples of extreme bias? Will you guys once again go back to the macaca story as proof? It really isn't that compelling an example of bias. It was an example of a dumb politician getting caught on film being stupid. Pointing that example out is like pointing to Dean's scream as an example of the media's rightward bias.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Ok
Economy: uniformly reported as more upbeat when a democrat is in office than when a republican is in office. By example, I repeat this once again march 2004 the jobs figure comes out with 350,000 new jobs created the times reports "bonds down on jobs news"
War: Iraq is a quaqmire. Bosnia, Somalia you wouldn't even realize we had deployed to either or were still deployed to one. Darfur is horrible a crime but Rwanda doesn't seem to have occured.
Science: We are running out of oil, the greenhouse effect is going to drown us, expect a plague outbreak, and any day the environment is going to fall apart and animals are going to come after us seeking vengeance. The press coverage of any science with a political implication reads like the script of a cheap horror movie.
Politics: This has been stated in other posts here but just an addition is abramoff a republican scandal, a democrat scandal or something that pretty much hit both parties ? Hmmm ?
As to Deans scream you need to recognize when somebody is being knifed by his own people.
Economy - Well I don't know how to respond to this because it is based purely on your perecptions. It's hard to argue that the economy was humming along in the late 90s. Hard to argue that we went through recessions under both Bush Presidencies. I have no idea about the times article you reference but it seems fairly innocuous. Once again you are expecting the media to be a cheerleader.
War: 3000 dead in Iraq. How many Americans died in Somalia or Bosnia? That you would try to compare the two is ludicrous.
Science: So doomsday reporting is a LIBERAL position? That's a new one.
Abramoff was convicted of numerous felonies. Which Democrat scandal are you referring to?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Economy
I may not bother to link but thats because either I don't have the link handy or its because I want to see how people will react. in this case it was both.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=588453
Thats a survey of over 300 newspapers over a 20 year time period. Its even peer reviewed for what thats worth.
War: Iraq is in pursuit of an actual interest and Bosnia is what ? over 250 dead in Bosnia not to mention a stealth fighter that was procured for the russians. now we accomplished what in Bosnia and what in Iraq ? That you dismiss the fact that a war were Americans are dying as trivial is ludicrous. Of course you might feel differently if GWB had deployed to Bosnia
Sciene: Yes doomsday is a liberal position when government expansion of control over peoples daily lives is the purported cure. It gets to be especially a liberal position when they can attack large corporations. The funny thing is these attacks are just shakedowns and the lib base never seems to pick up on this.
Abramoff: Could it be that Harry Reid, Tom Daschle, and Dick Gephardt were all on his payroll as well ?
...the non-story of Sandy Berger.
...the disappearance of the homeless problem in 1993, followed by its reemergence in 2001.
...the complete disinterest in financial scandals involving Democratic politicians. Example: Hillary Clinton's Cattlegate dealings smelt to high heaven.
...Why does John Stoessel seem like such a contrarian? It's because those network newsmagazine shows almost always take the liberal/Big Government/anti-business viewpoint. I could elaborate, but let me just remind you of the Dateline NBC episode where they rigged the pickup to catch fire.
...the whole Dan Rather/Mary Mapes/"fake but accurate" deal. Please. I can't for the life of me figure out how anyone from either side of the political spectrum could tolerate such brazen misbehavior for five minutes.
...tolerance and relative silence on the moral and ethical transgressions of Gerry Studds, Barney Frank, Alcee Hastings. Compare/contrast Mark Foley, Bob Livingston, Bob Packwood (the first three that come to mind).
The media investigated Clinton for 8 years and came up with nothing but you want them to investigate her AGAIN to prove that they aren't biased? Um,ok.
Gee what else did 1993 and 2001 have in common with each other? Oh I know. Those were both recessionary years(technically 2001 wasn't a recessionary year but .8% growth is a recession in my book.
I generally don't watch Dateline type shows but what exactly do you expected an investigative journalism show to cover? How wonderful Costco is as a company? Again, you are confusing their job with a bias.
So do you think it was the media that got Foley to resign? Did the media force the Senate Ethics Committee to recommend that Packwood be expelled from the Senate for unethical behavior? Was it the media that forced Livingston to resign or the soon to be published allegations from Larry Flynt?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Which is why I post on a board that philosophically opposes many of my beliefs.
However, in this matter, I think it is you that might want to think about your position. It has become gospel among the right that the media is not only biased but willfully trying to tip the scales.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
The hammered the lousy economy, the disaster that is Iraq, Bush's "abandoning" New Orleans ... you name it, all at best carefully selected "facts", at worst outright lies.
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and Barrons were my papers. I read both the Times and Journal everyday cover to cover on my way to work. Over time the times became progressively less readable for general news it got to the point where the only things I would read it for were Arts, culture, the tuesday science times and local events. I could not read it for news. In the end I just couldn't stand having people urinate on me while saying it was raining.
The Journal can still be counted on to keep editorials on the editorial section it still has nothing on Barrons though. Alan Abelson is truly one of the great American journalists and horrendously under appreciated.
because it's literate, generally well-written, and uses logic consistently. I enjoyed it so much that I subscribed to it. By the vagaries of Dow Jones' distribution network, I live in a part of NYC that got Barron's deliveries by postal mail rather than courier. The same edition you were reading on Friday night, I wouldn't get until the following Wednesday.
I found that nearly everything they wrote, that always sounded sage and reasonable on Friday evening, had been proven wrong by the following Wednesday, so I stopped reading it.
Apart from Barron's, the best contrary indicator I've read is Jim Grant's newsletter and columns. Literate, witty, logical, and with a nearly 100% error rate.
What do you do with kids like that? He belongs in jail of course, but you still wish you could hire him as a division VP or something. That's how tough it is to find talent. ;-)
that's pretty much what happened. He went to jail. Got out and is now, I think, a securities fraud consultant.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
If I had the energy it would take to sit on someone like that I wouldn't need employees. I just recently got rid of two someones like that. I let them steal a customer and set up shop together. It was like watching two fighting fish in a tank.
The funny thing is prior to them I had a pretty liberal vierw about peoples ability to change for the better.
employees to adjust your view of people. For both better and worse.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
"The media investigated Clinton for 8 years and came up with nothing but you want them to investigate her AGAIN to prove that they aren't biased? Um,ok."
The whole point of discussion on this thread is whether the media is biased. You expect me to be satisfied with their 8 year "investigation" of anything?
The only media investigation I've read of Hillary's commodities trading prowess was in the American Spectator, by that guy whose name escapes me but has since switched teams & become the darling of the Left. I'm telling you, it stinks, just like the Marc Rich pardon, just like the SPR oil loans, just like the hundred other sleazy Clinton business deals that the media gave them a free pass on.
Re: Foley. No, I think the media was complicit in cooperating with the Rahm Emanuel and/or others in the Dem party to control the timing of the story. After all, what's an election without an October Surprise?
Re: Congresspersons I mentioned. Yeah, the Republicans all got pretty much what was coming to them. Your silence on the Dems is deafening. I see no reciprocal treatment. These guys all went on to long, uh, distinguished careers after their moral/ethical transgressions. I have a problem with that. Maybe you would, too, if they had been Republicans.
Re: Dateline-type shows. So anti-business bias is "expected"?
Gee, flyerhawk, sounds like Q.E.D., to me.
Do you have an actual specific accusation about Clinton or is this just more idle speculation based on nothing?
Whether I have a problem with any of those Congresscritters(Note: I have a real problem with Packwood but the others not as much) is irrelevant. We are talking about how the media plays handles these scandals and how they are biased in their reporting of them. What is the evidence that supports this claim?
What do you think investigative journalism should be investigating? If it isn't government and corporate bad behavior I have no idea what it is.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
This is the show that rigged truck gas tanks to explode ?
The show that found you could be cheated in new yorks diamond district if you didn't know what you were doing ?
The show that found there were still sweatshops making garments in America ? Oh offtopic but still relevant sweatshops are the only way you can still produce clothing profitably here but thats another story. And thank you ILGWU love you to pieces.
I don't watch the show. I was simply pointing out what its ostensible purpose is.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Why, yes, as a matter of fact, I have it right here.
There was also the oil deal involving the Lums and Ron Brown's son: Democratic heavy hitters with no relevant background, set up in business so as to funnel illegal campaign contributions back to the Dems. Frontline did the only in depth reporting that I can remember.
Doesn't the Marc Rich pardon smell funny to you?
I didn't even mention Whitewater.
The common thread of all these sleazy transactions is that they make for crappy headlines. 98% of the MSM's consumers (and nearly 100% of its "investigative journalists") lack the attention span and business savvy to understand the kind of intricate deal that the Clintons specialize in.
Let's not forget that for eight years Clinton had All-Pro Left Tackle Janet Reno as AG, blocking every attempted investigation that came down the pike.
The fact is that we can go on and on about it and you'll always find some wierd reason why this and that is perfectly "understandable" or airily claim that it doesn't matter and that we're making a big deal out of what you believe to be nothing. You, flyerhawk, cannot be convinced - it is simply not possible ... which is why this diary isn't really meant for you as a Leftist.
You cannot possibly see the New York Times as being in any way biased because it confirms what you believe to be true and the natural order of things as you see it. For example, you would not have a problem with their labelling of the NSA's Terrorist Surveillance Program as a Domestic Spying program even though it focused exclusively on International (and non-American) calls between terrorist contact numbers and others. But Republicans and Conservatives would.
Do you understand?
Let me try another tack. FOX News is seen as being very biased to the Right by most of the Left, including prominent elected members of the Democrat Party and even their most recent past President. The Washington Times is also perceived as being quite Right-leaning in both its news coverage and editorial pages. I think you share that view. If not, just try posting on any Left-wing site that you believe FOX News is fair to both sides and see the reaction you would get.
But the thing is, FOX News is just about ten years old. Republicans and Conservatives have been saying the exact same thing in the other direction about the other major broadcast outlets for a much longer time. From as far back as 1969 when Spiro Agnew protested CBS putting up a panel composed exclusively of Democrats and Nixon opponents to provide "analysis" of Richard Nixon's speech appealing for the support of the American people on Vietnam - immediately after he had given it.
Maybe you should just try to consider the idea that the exact same way you perceive FOX News is the exact same way we perceive CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, etc. The same way you view the Washington Times is the same way we view the New York Times, Washington Post, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Houston Chronicle, etc.
But if you cannot, that's alright.
It's not very reasonable for me to expect you to be able to do so anyway.
Umm...\but Brent Bozell is a partisan hack and I can hardly believe that you believe the MSM is biased, but since you find it so shocking that Democrats and liberals have jobs in the news media I am not surprised.
/switches off Autorantic Flyerhawk Speech Generator
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
WHOLE truth.
For me, the eye-opener in the 90s involved C-Span and Rush Limbaugh in the 90s. I would watch House/Senate proceedings incl floor speeches and other live news and/or political events and then compare (a) my impressions even then as Democrat Party official; (b) MSM coverage by CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN that was nearly identical in what they considered significant, what they left out, and the spin; and (c) How Rush Limbaugh covered the same in which he never left out what the Left deemed significant, but then covered the whole event citing what I had deemed significant and then giving his spin, which I, as a democrat, even then, agreed with as the main truths!!
There was no contest as to whose coverage was fair and comprehensive. It was like the MSM was afraid for the people to know that whole truth, even incl quotes from Democrats. It was like they were protecting them from their own liberalism, intuitively knowing that same would be rejected by the majority.
So they covered up the leftist stuff and spun the right to seem extreme based on some Politically correct supposed conventional wisdom that basically insulted average comment sense thinking people.
I.E. the MSNM hated the Truth which was most always on the Right!
I converted.
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for The Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008 and The Minority Report. “One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Well I'm not really sure how many times I can say that I agree that there is a bias in many of the leading news organizations. If I say it 5 more times will you finally accept that I agree on this?
Bias exists. The New York Times is a product of its environment. The Washington Post is a product of its environment. Liberal big cities. Liberal universities that produce liberal journalists.
I have no problem with Fox. Sure it's biased but it's biased for a reason, to get people to watch their channel. I'm fine with that. I DON'T believe that they are trying to push some nefarious Conservative agenda. I don't think that they really care one whit about the underlying bias. If being more Liberal would result in more viewers they would hire Noam Chomsky tomorrow.
The New York Times certainly has a bias as well. I don't believe it is intentional for the most part and I don't know what can be done to change the bias or if that was even worth doing.
I don't really have any problem talking about the biases of the media. My PROBLEM is how people use the media as a scapegoat. It's not that people are tired of the War in Iraq. It's the media relentlessly TELLING them to be tired of the War in Iraq.
It's not that people like Walmart and want to shop there. It's big corporate media not being willing to tell the "truth" about Walmart.
Same mindset, opposite sides of the field.
And to me I think this attitude is haughty and condescending. The "sheeple are too stupid to know better" meme goes hand in hand with the "Media is biased and not telling the truth" meme. And of course we have those people who can see through the bias and the lies and tell it the truth to the sheeple. And if they don't listen then that just proves how brainwashed they are.
You know the media is apparently not very good at brainwashing people. Because the Republicans have been in charge for 6 years in the White House and controlled Congress for 10. Only 1 Democrat in the last 60 years has ever managed to get re-elected. The word Liberal is used as a pejorative. Truth be told if they are trying to brainwash us they better get better spinmasters because they have been doing a terrible job of it.
People have been complaining about the media since the beginning of our nation. Having a Free Press means they can say whatever they want and not face prosecution(well except for few unpleasant periods in our history such as the Sedition act of 1798 which was designed EXPLICITLY to punish the Press).
The Republicans didn't lose Congress in November because of the media. They lost it because they had lost any semblance of discipline. They lost it because they were nothing more than a cheerleader to the President. Virtually every Republican I know up here in LiberalLand believed that it was time for a change in Congress and getting a little more conflict between Congress and the White House wouldn't be a terrible thing.
Only in the blogosphere is media bias portrayed as the big bad meany trying to be kingmakers. Of course the blogosphere is not exactly an objective commenter on the MSM as most of the political blogosphere views themselves to be superior to the MSM and have a bit of a chip on their shoulder.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Loosing in Vietnam was one of the left's truly great accomplishments. Do you have any idea of how much dupliicty it took to make that happen? It left this generation of leftists with a high hurdle to meet and they are working really, really hard to match their forebears accomplishment with Iraq and the GWOT. It isn't easy so lets lay off, OK?
:-)
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
certainly has a bias as well. I don't believe it is intentional for the most part...
If you did, you wasted your time! (no offense, I'm just on one of my increasingly frequent "flyerhawk sabbaticals" Its a sanity thang)
Looks like Mbeck wants to jump me for optimism though, so I have self-defense to occupy my leisure despite...
Gamecock may be a more jolly elephant than even joli...? Tied?
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008
to the Times, see my post at the bottom.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
good, both ex-wives INSISTED on keeping it!
No, I didn't Joliphant, but some folks, like us, just have all the luck with names that match our personas (albeit mine with an "e") I feel like we are having a Roots' Kunta Kinte birth moment!
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008
To err is human, but it feels divine.
~Mae West
A favorite quote of mine.
___________________________________________________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008
>>>>>I won't deny that the large media organizations such as the New York Times or WaPo probably lean a little to the Left.
At one point during the recent Va. Senate race the WaPo had covered "Macaca" 165 times, they had covered Then Senator Allen's re-election platform once. I guess you could say those guys had a slight lean going on to the left.
2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight
Scandal sells copy. Policy discussions doesn't.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Mohollan (bribery), Jefferson (in His Freezer), Reid (Just about everything he does) because I don't quite remember the WaPo flogging those daily when a made up word like "macaca" is so much more important.
Two thirds of the world is covered by water, the other third is covered by Champ Bailey
and that's why we get the kind of reporting that we have seen for the past several years, where despite the facts the economy is a disaster; where despite the facts, nothing good has ever happened in Iraq; where despite the facts the US military is generally a bunch of poor ignorant miscreants; where depsite the facts, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld are all three headed monsters looking for more poor people to disadvantage, more innocent terorrists to mistreat, more ...
Yep, that leftism we on the right see is actually just a matter of perspective.
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
Let me ask you guys a question. If you self-identify as someone who is Conservative wouldn't that make your views right of center? Wouldn't that make centrist views appear leftist to you?Let me ask you guys a question. If you self-identify as someone who is Conservative wouldn't that make your views right of center? Wouldn't that make centrist views appear leftist to you?
Not necessarily. If my environment included people of most political orientations in sufficient numbers, then I'd be able to tell where I stand relative to these folks and the rest of the country.
But in an environment where it's 90% to the Left, well ...
Besides, what are "centrist" views? On taxes? Abortion? War on Terror? Gay marriage?
PS: If you actually believe that the average person working for the New York Times is in any way Conservative, even in terms of economics, you must not have been reading them. And for you to airily claim that the New York Times is not uber-liberal on social issues, when their own ombudsman admitted it, well ...
Just because you and others here may view abortion of a binary issue doesn't mean everyone else does. The same with gay marriage or the war in Iraq or against terrorists.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Let me ask you guys a question. If you self-identify as someone who is Conservative wouldn't that make your views right of center? Wouldn't that make centrist views appear leftist to you?
And therein lies the problem. there is no such thing as unbiased "news." There are rarely "facts" that everyone agrees are facts. Take global warmimg as an example. there are no undisputed "facts" with regard to this issue - so how can it ever possibly be presented as a neutral news piece?
Thus, it is impossible for something to be "centrist". it either must be slanted to show one side or the other as being the correct argument. Thus, when you have an article about tax policy, it will either be framed and written as generally more supportive of tax cuts or the opposite.
there is no "centrist". An article that reports only news - for instance "it snowed 3 inches in downtown denver last night" is the rarity.
Thus, the fact that some 80% or more of reporters and editors in the mainstream media are self identified liberals would indicate that one side is going to be presented better than the other side most of the time. Which side do you think it will be?
And, most conservatives don't claim there is a conpiracy involved. We simply point out that each reporter / editor's biases will inform their reporting. And then we point out, again, that over 80% of the same self-identify as liberals. This is not rocket science.
I see this 80% number bandied about in this thread quite a bit. What is the source this claim?
I hope it isn't the MRC.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Well, this link is from the MRC ...
But then, the MRC is actually citing studies by the Pew Foundation, Freedom Forum, Editor & Publisher, University sponsored professors, and in fact, surveys undertaken by newspapers such as the LA Times, US News & World Report, etc.
So?
I'll have to look at the actual studies themselves since Bozell has proven himself to be nothing more than a partisan hack.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Flyerhawk,
you say:
Many of you continue to try and take the media out to the woodshed over Iraq because you feel they should be waving pom poms and shouting "Go team". That has never been the purpose of the media and the reality is that they are reporting the stories that people WANT to hear.
Strawman alert. For the sake of this argument, take Iraq out of it and focus only on domestic politics. Next, for the domestic side, show me evidence that what and how the media reports are the stories that people WANT to hear. If i'm not mistaken, mainstream media is losing sales/circulation/ratins consistently, which absolutely tends to discredit your point.
The REALITY is that compared to the free media from around the world the US media is pretty darn tame and Conservative. Yet you would have us condemn our media for not being Conservative enough to suit your tastes.
Stawman II - nobody is saying the media necessarily needs to be more conservative. We are saying it needs to be more honest about its biases and agenda. For instance, in England, most newspapers let you know up front what party they generally support, and people can thus gauge the reporting throgh that lens. Moreover, just because media in other countries is even more left than in america, does not make it any more accurate or honest reporting. Thus, this point is not a point but an attempt to change the subject.
Can you provide the specific examples of extreme bias? Will you guys once again go back to the macaca story as proof? It really isn't that compelling an example of bias. It was an example of a dumb politician getting caught on film being stupid. Pointing that example out is like pointing to Dean's scream as an example of the media's rightward bias.
As I pointed out above, to someone like you, you either a) will never believe the media is leftward biased or b) would never admit it.
So, why should we argue with you about it. the examples are legion. Just one easy example - discussing news articles not op-eds - I regularly see people and institutions that are right-of-center labled in the mainstream media as "conservative", "far-right" or "extreme-right". I rarely see anyone (even someone as far to the left as Ted Kennedy) labled "liberal" and have never seen any american labled "far left" or "exreme left". How is it possible that in the media's world a far-right exists but no far-left exists?
And that is only a simple labling bias.
Someone above pointed you to studies supporting that over 80% of the mainstream editors and reporters self-identify as liberal. I'll ask you this question:
The left believes that every endeavor of man is tainted by prejudice and bias, to the extent that they constantly attempt to expand anti-discrimination laws to include ever more victim groups. Indeed, the left consistently lectures about unconscious bias and institutional bias in regards to every other facet of American life (the S.A.T. is biased against blacks, police are biased against minorities, etc., etc.), all requiring drastic action to combat. The left has made a cult of "diversity" to try to combat this alleged institutional bias they see everywhere in life.
And yet, they believe that the media is the one institution that is immune to this. The left instead believes that an institution that self-identifies as at least 80% liberal can simply avoid any bias in its work and day-to-day activities.
Are you claiming that an institution who self-identifies as liberal is not affected whatsoever by its own bias? If that is your claim - please explain how this is so.
Next, for the domestic side, show me evidence that what and how the media reports are the stories that people WANT to hear. If i'm not mistaken, mainstream media is losing sales/circulation/ratins consistently, which absolutely tends to discredit your point.
Alternative media sources on the Internet are drawing more readers. More people are getting rid of their newspaper subscriptions because they read the stories online.
As I pointed out above, to someone like you, you either a) will never believe the media is leftward biased or b) would never admit it.
I've already conceded that there is probably a small leftward bias particularly on social issues. That is apparently not enough.
Are you claiming that an institution who self-identifies as liberal is not affected whatsoever by its own bias? If that is your claim - please explain how this is so.
Nope. I do think that media has a bias. However the MSM isn't some monolithic entity. And they often report from a Conservative bias as well. Heck most reporting of Iraq in the first 6 months was pure cheerleading. It wasn't until we got into the occupation of Iraq that the media turned on the Administration.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
You mean like the fictitious story about how the Baghdad Museum was looted because the Americans were not guarding it? Was that part of the cheerleading?
The media started in with the gloom and doom about three days into the war, when the army paused on its drive to Baghdad to reat and refuel.
You take that as an example of reporting with a conservative bias? Please!
For one thing, the Iraq war's status as some 'conservative' venture was always questionable. Its 'conservative' nature has much more to do with the fact that it was launched by a quasi-conservative President than with it being an expression of conservative ideals.
But even if I cede to your point on Iraq, I'd still point to all of the other issues. Do you think the media ever reports on abortion, gay marriage, immigration, Second Amendment/gun control, Establishment Clause matters, etc from a conservative bias?
Of course they don't.
I really don't know. But then I'm not trying to advocate that the Press has a Conservative bias. I also already said that a lot of the MSM is socially Liberal and economically Conservative.
Should the New York Times, a newspaper based in a very Liberal city with a large gay population and a nearly universal belief in gun control, take Conservative views on those matters?
If you ran the New York Times would you be more interested in increasing readership or advocating your personal views?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
And which newspapers are in growth cycles right now?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Flyerhawk:
you say:
Just because you and others here may view abortion of a binary issue doesn't mean everyone else does. The same with gay marriage or the war in Iraq or against terrorists.
Please educate us and explain what the "centrist" position is on a) abortion and b) gay marriage.
I would argue that most conservative's position on gay marriage is first and foremost, that it is wrong for the Courts to impose it. And that if state legislatures enacted gay marriage, we would live with it. But, please, explain the centrist position that the media is reporting from.
If I am enlightened as to what the "centrist" position is, maybe my opinion of media bias will change.
The "centrist" position on abortion could be supporting the status quo(ie Roe v Wade) or looking to add more restrictions but keep abortion generally legal.
The "centrist" position on gay marriage is that gay people should be entitled to the same rights as married couples no matter what you call it.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
The "centrist" position on abortion could be supporting the status quo(ie Roe v Wade) or looking to add more restrictions but keep abortion generally legal.
No.
Clever of you, but ... NO.
The "centrist" position on gay marriage is that gay people should be entitled to the same rights as married couples no matter what you call it.
The New York Times calls this the "Centrist" position as well. But this is actually the "Far Left" position on the issue.
You're like a typical New York Times reporter; you're so far to the Left, you perceive the "Center" as being much farther to the Left than it actually is - which is why the New York Times editorial board can take a look at John Kerry's fiscal record and announce that he's a fiscal conservative.
Clever of you, but ... NO.
So anyone who supports the status quo is not centrist? An interesting argument to make. Kinda flies in the face of political theory, but whatever. So what is the centrist position, in your opinion? Repeal of Roe V Wade? Who cares if half the country supports Roe V Wade? The truly centrist position is, in fact, a Conservative position.
The New York Times calls this the "Centrist" position as well. But this is actually the "Far Left" position on the issue.
Sure, why not? Giving gay couples legal rights is a far left position. Ok.
You're like a typical New York Times reporter; you're so far to the Left, you perceive the "Center" as being much farther to the Left than it actually is -
Actually no. I perceive the center to be somewhere between the Right and Left. I consider the center to be the vast majority of people who simply don't much care about gay marriage. They aren't for it. They aren't much against it. Heck even my gay friends aren't that worked up over it. It's a political football and nothing more.
But if you think that letting gay couples have visitation rights, power of attorney, and the right to receive medical coverage from their significant other to be a far left position, I guess we will never ever come close to seeing eye to eye on the matter.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
You take disingenuousness to impressive new levels.
The most "Centrist" position on abortion is to let the states decide. A Conservative position is a complete ban except in cases of life & health of the mother, rape and (perhaps) incest.
The "Centrist" position on abortion also supports bans on partial birth abortions and other forms of late terms abortions.
In fact, if you actually took the time to look at the details of polling, you'd notice that after the first trimester, the popularity of legal abortion declines rather sharply, largely because the embryo begins to actually look very much like a baby.
The status quo today, that you call the "Centrist" position is for abortions to be legal all the way up to the day before delivery for any reason whatsoever. I must admit that I'm impressed you even gave it a go at describing that as the "Conservative" position.
So ... clever of you, but ... NO.
Giving gay couples legal rights is a far left position.Ok.
Again, disingenuous ... and very clever ... but no.
It all depends on what legal rights you're talking about, here, doesn't it?
An unmarried straight couple can decide on a whim to sign a publicly notarized contract that gives them power of attorney, visitation rights, etc. Heck, if they want to, they can hunt for an insurance policy that would cover them both as domestic partners.
What exactly prevents two gay people from doing the same thing?
But then, there are other rights associated with marriage, aren't there? Like the right to not be compelled to testify against your spouse in court? Tax breaks and other such benefits? Preference towards married couples in terms of adoption?
Personally, I wouldn't mind domestic partnership legislation that included gay couples, so long as it also included groups of any number of people no matter their relationship. That way, three widowed sisters living together can get those same tax breaks (more economic freedom), visitation rights, power of attorney, inheritance, etc.
Other benefits can be resolved exclusively for heterorsexual married couples such as the right not to have to testify against the other, some extra tax breaks as a potentially pro-creative couple and other such stuff, etc.
To me, it is a "Centrist" position that the state has an interest in promoting, and thus privileging life unions between men and women because this provides the best environment for the birth and raising of children; a home with both biological parents (by definition a man and a woman) in a committed relationship. Marriage and children are entertwined, notwithstanding childless married couples who are actually exceptions to the rule.
It is the far Left's position that marriage has nothing to do with children ... not the "Centrist" position.
But I applaud you for trying to redefine the "Center" to suit your preferences. It was a good attempt.
The most "Centrist" position on abortion is to let the states decide. A Conservative position is a complete ban except in cases of life & health of the mother, rape and (perhaps) incest.
Why? What makes this the centrist position on abortion? Most people who want to change the laws to let the states decide are pro-life. Seems that this position is more of a compromise for Conservatives.
In fact, if you actually took the time to look at the details of polling, you'd notice that after the first trimester, the popularity of legal abortion declines rather sharply, largely because the embryo begins to actually look very much like a baby.
Ok. I don't disagree. Not sure how you thought I did.
It is the far Left's position that marriage has nothing to do with children ... not the "Centrist" position.
But I applaud you for trying to redefine the "Center" to suit your preferences. It was a good attempt.
And where did I mention marriage? The funny thing is that you essentially said the SAME THING I DID but threw some invective at me to make it sound like it was something different. Perhaps you should re-read what I said.....
The "centrist" position on gay marriage is that gay people should be entitled to the same rights as married couples no matter what you call it.
So your personal views are that they shouldn't have all the same rights. Ok. Why are you the standard bearer for centrist views? You self-describe yourself as a Conservative. FTR, I don't consider myself a centrist, although I do hold many centrist views.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Why? What makes this the centrist position on abortion?
What makes your position i.e. the status quo, the "centrist" position on abortion?
Most people who support Roe V Wade are pro-abortion. Seems that this position is more of a compromise for Leftists ... not the "Center".
Ok. I don't disagree. Not sure how you thought I did.
You said the status quo, i.e. abortion legal even up to the day before birth for any reason whatsoever, is the "Centrist" position and you cited supposed majority support to prove it.
I pointed out that the majority actually supports far more restrictions than the status quo. Understand?
And where did I mention marriage?
Nice attempt, but no dice. You know very well that when you talk about gay couples having the same rights as "married couples" (your words, not mine), you just mentioned marriage.
So your personal views are that they shouldn't have all the same rights.
Precisely. But I'm not just limiting it to gay people. I want this privilege extended to any and all combinations of people no matter their familial relationship. Marriage and some of its exclusively privileges should be reserved for heterosexual couples.
Good compromise, eh?
Why are you the standard bearer for centrist views?
You presumed to speak for "Centrist" views just up this thread. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. So I guess I could ask you the same question.
PS: From all your posts and comments here, there's nothing really "Centrist" about you. You're about as far to the Left as Ted Kennedy, only you certainly are more intelligent, well-spoken and slippery about your arguments.
Flyer seems to have had an oh no moment a couple of topics ago and decided to dig in his heels. At this point you could take him in the NYT bullpen and show him reporters deciding to drop stories because they would benefit conservatives and he would still deny.
What makes your position i.e. the status quo, the "centrist" position on abortion?
Most people who support Roe V Wade are pro-abortion. Seems that this position is more of a compromise for Leftists ... not the "Center".
And a majority of Americans support Roe v Wade, even if many of them would like to see further restrictions on abortion implemented.
You said the status quo, i.e. abortion legal even up to the day before birth for any reason whatsoever, is the "Centrist" position and you cited supposed majority support to prove it.
I pointed out that the majority actually supports far more restrictions than the status quo. Understand?
That's a willful distortion of my comments. PBA is a very contentious issue that I haven't even addressed and not specifically covered under Roe.
You know very well that when you talk about gay couples having the same rights as "married couples" (your words, not mine), you just mentioned marriage.
So you think marriage is simply a legal construct that creates a certain set of rights? I have to say I am surprised by this.
Good compromise, eh?
Sure. Personally I couldn't care less about the gay marriage debate. None of my gay friends seem to care either. It's a political football and nothing more.
PS: From all your posts and comments here, there's nothing really "Centrist" about you. You're about as far to the Left as Ted Kennedy, only you certainly are more intelligent, well-spoken and slippery about your arguments.?
I guess that's why I said that I DON'T consider myself a centrist. In some ways I may be more Liberal than Ted Kennedy but probably not in any of the ways you think.
FTR, if you were to ask MY PERSONAL opinion about abortion it is notably different. I actually want to see Roe v Wade overturned. Then again I also fell that that is doesn't much matter in the long run.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
I think you will find that there is a wide range of opinion here on the degree to which abortion should be permitted and under what circumstances. But I think all of us would be satisifed with an opportunity to fight the issue out in the legislatures and ballot boxes of the several states; I think there is a compelling case to be made for abolition and that case can succeed in public square. Judicial fiat has removed the people's right to decide and that is never, ever a good thing.
John
----------
Why would God create something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
I don't think that is an unreasonable position. I actually agree with you. However RedState is not representative of America as a whole. So what it considered a MODERATE position here is not necessarily a CENTRIST position across the country.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
As far as abortion goes, the media is complicit in building public support for Roe by misleading the people into thinking that it only applies to the first trimester, and that abortion would be illegal everywhere if the decision were overturned. Without these two factors, public support for Roe would fall.
As far as gay marriage goes, the Left and the media love to point to polls showing combined support for gay marriage and civil unions enjoying plurality or majority status, but actual votes show something else entirely. Most of the 26 or so popularly passed state amendments banning gay marriage have also banned its euphemistic substitutes. The only reason some of the votes were closer this past cycle, and that it failed in Arizona, was because of the Left's clever tactic of lying about how the amendments could interfere with traditional heterosexual relationships. And if support for gay marriage in all but name is so strong, then why have only 2 or 3 states voluntarily adopted civil unions or domestic partnerships?
But as is the case with so many liberals, and with the media, you miss the point almost entirely. The heart of this debate is over the role of the courts. I seriously doubt that its a 'centrist' position to favor having a few judges impose gay marriage on a state, or the entire nation. Usually when the media covers this story, they follow the Left's script of these amendments being an example of the GOP using wedge issues to divide Americans; when of course the truth is that they are final-resort measures taken to stop renegade judges.
A true centrist position that would appeal to most conservatives, and which should appeal to liberals who hold a sane view of Constitutional interpretation, is that the courts should stay out of it.
But as is the case with so many liberals, and with the media, you miss the point almost entirely. The heart of this debate is over the role of the courts. I seriously doubt that its a 'centrist' position to favor having a few judges impose gay marriage on a state, or the entire nation. Usually when the media covers this story, they follow the Left's script of these amendments being an example of the GOP using wedge issues to divide Americans; when of course the truth is that they are final-resort measures taken to stop renegade judges.
So a discussion about media bias is really a discussion about the courts? OK. That's a new take on the matter.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
flyerhawk, we all know you're much smarter than this. But then you're fantastic at being disingenuous.
In other words, he didn't mean it that way and I'm very certain that you know it.
I can't help poor language on the part of others.
He said the WHOLE POINT was about the courts. OK. How should I take that statement?
The truth is he/she went on a rant that was unrelated to the point of the diary.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
How should I take that statement?
By reading his comment and making an honest attempt to actually comprehend what he was saying. It definitely was not poorly written.
You did not.
He was saying that there was another perspective on those court decisions other than that of the far Left and gay marriage supporters that the Fourth Estate barely gave a hearing.
And he's very right.
The truth is he/she went on a rant that was unrelated to the point of the diary.
No. I think his comment was very related to the point of the diary.
I've been reading this thread and as with so many threads and posts arguing about media bias I've read over the years on many forums, it degenerates into an argument about whether the media is biased or not.
It's biased, already. ALL media is biased. It's the very nature of journalism to be biased, even when the journalist in question is attempting to be fair and impartial. The problem is there is no such thing as fair and impartial journalism and never has been. Any sort of reporting invariably will be colored by the perceptions of the person writing it. (It can still be 100% factual in the process, mind you - it's just a matter of deciding which facts are actually relevant and how to present them.)
It's also, in most cases, trivial to predict just what kind of bias a particular media outlet will have -- just look at the people the outlet serves. If the outlet's primary audience is a conservative one, it will be have a conservative bent. If the outlet's primary audience is a liberal one, it will have a liberal bent.
So it's hardly surprising that papers like the New York Times and Washington Post are liberal. Of course they are -- their target audience is overwhelmingly liberal. In fact, the vast majority of larger newspapers are going to be strongly liberal simply because the people in the large urban areas where these papers reside tend strongly to be liberal.
(Of course, there are a lot of smaller more rural papers which tend strongly to be conservative. Individually, they aren't as big, but combined they reach a lot of people...)
And quite frankly, there's pretty much nothing that can be done about media bias. It exists by the very nature of population distribution. So why on earth do people from both sides of the blogosphere keep gnawing away and making futile complaints that the media is biased? (Oooh.... There's those two words, "Both Sides", which apparently identify me as a moderate who doesn't believe the media is biased... I guess that shows me... ;-)
I've long advocated that rather than complain about bias, you accept that it exists and will continue to exist, and find multiple sources of news that are biased differently (*especially* ones which you disagree with...), then learn to filter the fact from the hyperbole. Then teach others to do the same.
Because a great many people who consume mainstream news reports actually believe that they are unbiased. Even when they acknowledge some bias, they still think it's better to get biased news than no news.
You're absolutely right in that one should always consider the source when evaluating news reports, seek out multiple points of view, and do one's best to stay critical. But there is so much happening in the world that is of interest, and the journalism profession has cleverly seized on the opportunity thus created: to present a set of stories as having been pre-evaluated for truth, and properly balanced. It's just like buying prepared meals: you're paying someone else to do the cooking. But it's awfully dangerous to accept that someone else can do your critical thinking for you.
To me, mainstream news products belong strictly in the category of light entertainment, and I go to great lengths to avoid consuming them. I've never seen Katie Couric or the other network news anchors on television (I'd have to look up their names, frankly), and I like it that way.
Before I start, thanks to MAK for the kind words, and congratulations on your promotion. May the saber that Erick & Co just handed you not turn out to be a two-edged one. :)
Upthread, I posted one idea on what we can do , in response to the MSM's bias:
Take a public position that the MSM's actions in the 2006 elections (the WaPo war on George Allen, CNN's "Broken Government" series) constitute a causus belli . Then, treat the key MSM organs (WaPo, NYT, CNN) as belligerents against the GOP and the Administration. Bush and the WH can stay above this fray publicly. Let some RNC officials or Senators make a few speeches, or give a few interviews, or leak a memo or two in which they spell out that, in the GOP's unannounced-but-commonly-held opinion, the MSM has initiated hostilities with the Republican Party and the Bush Administration.
Then, act accordingly:
1) Support the growth of conservative print media. If a town has both a conservative and a liberal paper, give interviews to the conservative paper. Refuse to return calls from the liberal paper.
2) Freeze out the openly-biased reporters. Why should Tony Snow keep calling on David Gregory or Helen Thomas? They should only speak to openly-hostile reporters if it suits the White House's needs. E.g., if the WH determines there's political hay to be made by beating up on David Gregory, or letting Helen Thomas be herself out loud for the microphones to hear and record, then call on them. Otherwise, let them eat silence. Snow should smile, say "Hi, Helen," and then call on someone else. (I do NOT mean that the WH should duck tough questions! But, those reporters that have gone over the edge in being hostile to the WH should feel the sting).
3) When the MSM screams out loud after hearing the speeches/interviews and seeing the "leaked" memos I mentioned above, come back with a measured response, supportable by evidence, that throws the ball back in THEIR court. First of all, don't label every newspaper as "biased." Pick the big culprits and focus on them. Then, when those "big culprits" (WaPo jumps to mind, as does CNN) request interviews where they can ask "Oh, why are you being so mean to us ," oblige. Send forth a GOP representative with a stack of ALL the WaPo George Allen stories--to include the ombundsman's assessment that the WaPo piled on. Or a CD with ALL of the hours of CNN airtime with the phrase "Broken [Fill In The Blank]" running across the screen, where every viewer could see it regardless of how low the TV volume was or how loud the conversation in the living room was.
Then, that polite GOP rep should ask the Indignant Nonpartisan MSM Rep (INMSMR) if they really thought that reporting like that wouldn't possibly have an impact in a really close election. (If the INMSMR says, "well...no", GOP rep should respond with a mixed look of surprise and disbelief, overlaid by a flicker of the eyes that says "my god...is THIS what you get for your money at the Columbia School of Journalism?")
Lay out our case. I know we've done it before--let's do it again. Brett Bozell and others have PLENTY of ammo to fire in this fight, PLENTY of evidence of bias. The actions of the WaPo and CNN are our causus belli . So, let's treat the key MSM organs as de facto belligerents, in open conflict with the GOP and the Bush Administration, whose goal is to damage the Bush Administration and defeat GOP objectives. Act accordingly, in subtle and muted ways such as the ones I outlined above. Then, when the MSM starts to pout, lay out all the evidence we used to make our decision, and then STAND on that decision. Do NOT flinch!
Our attitude should be: We didn't start this fight. But, the other side CLEARLY wants to fight, and CLEARLY wants us to lose. OK, then--we'll fight.
Put the MSM on the defensive. Make THEM explain 24/7 macaca and "Broken {Fill In The Blank]". If we make the discussion be about THEM, we regain a fair amount of the initiative and momentum in public discussion. And, if we regain the support of 51+% of the American people, we win in 2008.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Dear Editor,
We admit, we are surprised by the indignation in your recent editorial ("HEY, Whaddaya Mean We're 'Biased'?"). As we in the Republican Party see it, we're simply acknowledging the decision you've made--a decision you have every right to make.
We recognize that the Washington Post is a business. Every business chooses its own operating philosophy and selects the audience/market it wishes to target. The RNC memoranda you quoted in your editorial were written, first of all, to remind Republican Party officials and members of that fact.
Then, those memoranda laid out the RNC's belief, based on plenty of evidence, that the Washington Post had apparently decided to target a more liberal and Democrat Party readership. NO ONE is disputing the Post's right to make such a decision. Our memoranda were simply intended to advise our party membership that, in the GOP leadership's opinion, the Washington Post has chosen to take a partisan stance, and to craft its content to appeal to a segment of American political society whose goals contradict those traditionally pursued by Republicans. We see no other explanation for the "piling-on" (your ombundsman's words--not ours) coverage your paper conducted for the Allen campaign.
Nowhere have we called for people to stop reading the Post, or to cancel subscriptions and advertising. Accordingly, we remain puzzled by the indignation evident in your editoral. As we see it, the Washington Post had made an obvious choice. We're simply acknowledging the choice your paper has so obviously made.
Hail to the Redskins!
Respectfully,
An Intern,
The Republican National Committee
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
didn't think I'd find, has 182 citations for articles about Cindy Sheehan.
Next, I checked for citations on Jason Dunham, the recent recipient of the Medal of Honor. There is one citation, in the "Books" section related to a book on the development of medical devices in Iraq. Cpl Dunham is mentioned because of his wounds and the efforts to save him, he was not the subject of the book.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Why is that a reasonable comparison. Cindy Sheehan is a media whore and Jason Dunham is not politically active.
Do you think they deserve equal coverage?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008
and hope you're just being snarky. In which case you're forgiven.
If not, President Bush announced, on November 10 - Cpl Dunham's 25th birthday - that he would be posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor. He fell on a grenade and saved the lives of his squad two weeks before he was due to come home from his second tour in Iraq.
And I think Cpl Dunham deserves front page, above the fold coverage. He didn't even get an obit.
I searched the NYT site for Sgt1stCl Paul Smith who was awarded the MoH in 2005. There appears to be no mention of him either.
I'm going to stop now because I am mad as hell.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
You said
He fell on a grenade and saved the lives of his squad two weeks before he was due to come home from his second tour in Iraq.
Actually, he was the only man in the room with a chance of escape, but chose instead to throw himself on the grenade. Small distinction I know, but an act of heroism such as his should not be glossed over with the ssuggestion he merely fell on it.
On April 14, 2004, in Iraq near the Syrian border, the corporal used his helmet and his body to smother an exploding Mills Bomb let loose by a raging insurgent whom Dunham and two other Marines tried to subdue.The explosion dazed and wounded Lance Cpl. William Hampton and Pfc. Kelly Miller. The insurgent stood up after the blast and was immediately killed by Marine small-arms fire.
“By giving his own life, Cpl. Dunham saved the lives of two of his men and showed the world what it means to be a Marine,” said Bush.
Dunham lay face down with a shard the size of a dress-shirt button lodged in his head. The hard, molded mesh that was his Kevlar helmet was now scattered yards around into clods and shredded fabric. Dunham never regained consciousness and died eight days later at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., with his mother and father at his bedside.
Dunham’s commanding officers from 3rd Battalion, 7th Marines, investigated his actions and nominated him for the Medal of Honor. After two years and seven months making its way to the White House, the nomination now has the necessary approval from the president. The president will present the medal and citation at a date to be determined.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008
I'll admit to some snark and honestly I didn't know much about the story of Cpl Dunham. And deserve was a really bad choice of words. Of course people like Cpl Dunham deserve to be praised and admired for their sacrifice and heroism.
I was really trying to speak more to the newsworthiness of the two people. Cpl Dunham is a hero but there is no controversy with Cpl. Dunham. Unless the media chooses to glorify his sacrifice and make it a central story, there isn't much to talk about it from a journalistic point of view.
Cindy Sheehan, otoh, is always worth talking about because she is VERY controversial and creates emotional reactions. The Right gets angry, the Left gets self-righteous and the middle watches in bemusement. But they all watch.
Cpl. Dunham reminds people of the sacrifices that our soldiers our making and highlights the fact that most of us have not made ANY sacrifices. That is discomfiting to some.
I guess my point really boils down to the fact that people like Sheehan will ALWAYS get air time while people like Cpl. Dunham usually get cast aside. It has little to do with Right and Left. It's about what sells copy.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Sheehan is newsworthy because she is being given column inches. The medal of honor winners in the past were newsworthy and reported. Sometime the newspapers decided that dieing to defend your nation didn't warrant notice.
But what newspaper does Cindy Sheehan write for?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Just that newspapers were devoting inches of column space. If this is a misuse of the term, I plead no contest. I am not in the newspaper business.
Not notice but worthy praise. They have found that if the death can be used to defeat the cause a soldier died for then it was worth noting.
The reason that Cindy Sheehan is "newsworthy" is ONLY because the Times and others of their ilk have MADE her so. They are the ones that decided that being anti-American, anti-Semitic, and willing to engage in every kind of cheap publicity stunt to demonstrate how much she hates George Bush makes her newsworthy.
In a more direct comparison, how many Gold Star families who support Bush and support the War effort have the Times sought out. How many of them has MoDo bothered to note that they MUST be listened to because THEY have the ultimate moral authority because of the sacrifice they've made. Ahh, none. And it's not like they couldn't find them. Melanie Morgan is available 24x7. If they don't like her, I can recommend at least half a dozen families who would fit the bill.
But Sheehan gets ink because she hates Bush. Period. They print inch after inch of her "feelings", and don't bother to let their readers know that shes about as pro-Israel as the President of Iran. They've not bothered to note that her stance on the war was birthed long before Casey went into the Army and that she's just using his death for publicity.
The fact that they can find room to promote Cindy Sheehan and not find room to talk to one family who supports the war, not find room to feature a single story about war heroes who've willingly given their lives so that their comrades could go home is an outrage.
They did print a story about Jeffrey Starr, but they willfully leave out information from his last letter home which they parsed. You can find a full account here. It happens to be the first blog I wrote at RedState.
The NYT is as committed to printing the truth as was Pravda. Their head should read "All the news that's fit to slant."
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
If Melanie Morgan got arrested in front of the Bush Ranch regularly, she would get more press time.
This goes back to my point about the MSM being incompetent if what you claim is true. Cindy Sheehan is viewed as a loon by everyone but the most ardent Lefties. So what does the New York Times expect to get out of trumpeting her?
FTR, I did a search on the New York Times and Washington Times for Cindy Sheehan, Cpl Dunham, and Melanie Morgan.
Melanie Morgan was referenced 4 times in the WT and 4 times in the NYT. Sheehan was referenced 62 times in the WT and 141 in the NYT. Cpl Dunham was referenced in 3 articles in the New York Times and ZERO times in the Washington Times.
Is the Washington Times part of the Vast Left Wing Media Conspiracy as well?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
If Melanie Morgan got arrested in front of the Bush Ranch regularly, she would get more press time.
And you insist that the media isn't biased? Come on, you're better than that.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Please explain why that is an example of bias. You don't think it is newsworthy when a political activist with a fairly sizable following gets arrested on the front door of the President's home?
Let's also be clear about Melanie Morgan. She is PROFESSIONAL lobbyist. She has her own talk show. And she is paid, likely a considerable sum, by Russo, Marsh and Rogers. Why is she comparable to Cindy Sheehan?
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
I think sometimes you guys so caught up in your own conventional wisdom that you don't even try and challenge it.
You think that some things are self-evidence when, in fact, they are not and it is only your own beliefs that make it appear that way.
I guess you think I'm trying to be intentionally dense or obstinate but I'm not.
You begin with a premise, that the New York Times is willfully trying to push a specific agenda. You then look for evidence to support that claim. The standard isn't terribly high. Just about anything that COULD be evidence IS evidence. No other possible theories are considered credible. It MUST be willful bias and agenda journalism.
That's fine, if you want to believe that. But it is based on faith, not qualitative analysis.
"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw
Gamecock, DeVine Op-Ed for Charlotte Observer, blogs at Race 4 2008
And the lowest day of the year for me was the day Tony Snow apologized to the press corps for noting that a question was politicized.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?