so much anger...

[epeemike81]

One more thing, can we please not charaterize NPR and the BBC as "liberal?"

Due to the right leaning tendencies of our own media, most noticeably FoxNews, and the sensationalism of modern news casting we have a tendency to view any reasoned debate than gives more than lipservice to a "leftist" point of view as "liberal media." Granted I'm an avid NPR listener (kills the time in the car on the way to fencing practice) so I'm sure I have some bias, but they are one of the few news outlets that I've found that did not present the news in a way that I felt was designed to sway my opinion. I'm not going to go into the numerous examples of right leaning journalism on foxnews because it has been well documented, but even the other networks have biased reporting. This is going to piss off some people on the board, but {ducking} the constant flying of american flags and the patriotic themes on supposed "unbiased news networks" is not the kind of news I'm looking for. I want reporting that looks at the issue at hand from both sides and allows me to make the judgement I feel is appropriate, not the one the government prefers. NPR, and the BBC in particular, provide me with that type of newsource and one that deals with the issues that I find important (International and domestic policies, International relations, politics, etc...).

edit: left out a word.

I agree completely, but am obviously missing where anybody did classify them as liberal...

-m

[epeemike81]

Franken lies the same way the other guys do, by omission. He chooses which side of a story to tell. The side the makes his point of view look best.

right, they weren't accusing O'Reilly of lying by omission. he lies explicitly. the example I remember right now isn't very substantive, but I remember hearing some more substantive lies as well:

he lied about awards won by 48 Hours while he was there. said they won two Peabody awards. um, not so much.

-m

[epeemike81]

I'm sorry, I didn't see an argument in your post, only an opinion and a preference.

I don't agree, I think NPR is extremely biased. I also think Fox, CNN, and the New York Times are. I don't see a vast right-wing media, that liberals tend to see when their candidate is not doing as well as they would like.

actually, far more americans believe in a "liberal media" than a right-wing one, even though there is more evidence for the latter...

I agree with Franken's statement on this. basically, he says there aren't many actual biases, just laziness. there's the easy to cover bias, the sensationalistic bias... Fox IS biased. VERY right wing. Not exactly shocking, since Murdock said he started the network to "balance the liberal media." pretty much everything else is pretty centrist (including NYT and NPR, which are usually described as liberal, but work hard not to be)

-m

[epeemike81]

Look Here or Here for some examples.

Franken is the flipside of Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly. Same stuff, different viewpoint.

--Philistine

I have to agree with jeff and fencingguy...

very unimpressed with those websites. the fact that they're trying to call that lies makes me more convinced than ever that he DOESN'T lie. after all, that's the best they could come up with??? that stuff isn't even vaguely misleading!

-m

[adidas33k]

I'm not trying to knock anyone,epeemike81, I just happen to have read this recently, but the show O'Reilly was on and claimed to have won two Peabodys was "Inside Edition" not 48 hours. They actually won one Polk and it was after O'Reilly wasn't on the show anymore.

[Schiavona]

pretty much everything else is pretty centrist (including NYT and NPR, which are usually described as liberal, but work hard not to be)

-m

There's bias and then there's bias.....Often the bias in news stories is nearly invisible and the work of editors who we never see or hear directly. The simple words used in a report can illistrate a bias, even if the writer isn't aware of it. Example; 1) A Palestinian suicide bomber killed five people today, two of them children, in Israel. 2) A Palestinian martyr killed himself and five Israelis today. 3) A Palestinian man exploded a bomb which killed himself and five others today in Israel. Which one is most objective?

Emotional loadings on words and phrases are really more important than people realize.

To bring this to the world of fencing try talking to people who don't like flicks, only use the term coup lancee instead. My club started a drill line again, which has always failed in the past(people arriving later and later in order to miss it), this time we're calling it a group lesson. Guess what? People show up for the group lesson where they might miss 'drill line'.

How something is said is just as important as what is said.

[Inquartata]

Yep.

I've cited this example before, but perhaps it bears repeating.

I was engaged in an argument over whether or not there was a "liberal media bias". As an experiment, I taped an interview with two gentlemen who were on opposite sides of an issue ( I forget which and on which TV network; it scarcely makes a difference to the point ).

I watched the debate through once and could discern no perceptible bias either way. Then I watched it through with frequent stops and replays. I counted the number of seconds each debater was given to present his position; the more liberal of the two got much more time. I counted the number of times the moderator interrupted each man; the liberal was interrupted less...and the interruptions tended to be helpfully elucidatory, while the interruption of the conservative were more challenging ( "But didn't you say", "How do you explain", "You haven't answered Mr. X's point that". ) And when the moderator interrupted the liberal and the latter kept speaking anyway the moderator lapsed into respectful silence; when the conservative tried to do the same the moderator kept plowing on, louder, until the former gave up and let the moderator finish his critique.

Try this sort of content analysis yourself sometime, on a major news
program---not even "Frontline" or "60 Minutes", that's too easy. Try it on a CBS, NBC, ABC or CNN piece. The slant is there, it's just really subtle and it flows less from a desired conclusion than from the unconscious biases of the journalists, editors and producers ( whom several studies have found to share overwhelmingly certain characteristics often associated with liberal viwpoints, if not outright, declared liberal sympathies---newsmen and women like to pride themselves on not being identifiably political, but they have opinions like everyone else and they tend to creep into their work ).

And these sort of views are relentlessly presented not as liberal but as "centrist" or "majority" because liberals, like conservatives, tend to think of their views that way. Both truly BELIEVE they are the mainstream, and the other side is the fringe. ( Which is right is impossible to say. ) And so both see anything which diverges from their own world view as "biased", either left or right, depending. And that includes the people who work IN the media...

[Tireur]

And these sort of views are relentlessly presented not as liberal but as "centrist" or "majority" because liberals, like conservatives, tend to think of their views that way. Both truly BELIEVE they are the mainstream, and the other side is the fringe. ( Which is right is impossible to say. ) And so both see anything which diverges from their own world view as "biased", either left or right, depending. And that includes the people who work IN the media...

This is basically what I was sitting down to say. People who think 60 Minutes, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, the New York Times, NPR and especially Al Franken are not biased need to accept that their perception may be just as skewed as they say the "other side" is.

[Tireur]

I hate conciliatory posts... they take all the fun out of a debate

Maybe I should take back my explanation and start tossing insults around. Either that or make some sweeping generalizations about conservatives, liberals, Republicans, and Democrats.

See your perception of the post was incorrect.

[Tireur]

actually, far more americans believe in a "liberal media" than a right-wing one, even though there is more evidence for the latter...
-m

I guess no one has presented this "evidence" to me..

Conservative: Fox, Limbaugh, Savage, a few scattered newspapers.........hmmmmm

Liberal: Just about everyone else

[esskreemr]

That makes you a moderate, like me. The problem is we have a bipartisan system in place to ensure that the two parties stay in power.

I find the extremist, left or right, either have inherently flawed logic or a definite political agenda. In addition, talk show hosts don't make money agreeing with everybody, they make money by creating discussion and discord. I trully hope that they don't agree 100% with all the tripe that they are peddling.

For instance, look at the right-wings favorite crack-***** talk show host. Obviously for all these years he's been deriding drug addicted individuals and touting on air that the "light" sentences should be increased for drug users. Yet, he's still spouting his less-than-half truths to the conservative public and they are buying it. This hypocritical, say one thing, do another is what kills me most, left or right. By listening to his broadcasts, YOU are supporting DRUG use!!!

[fencingguy]

See your perception of the post was incorrect.

I was referring to my own post. I didn't think you were conceding my point.

Thats why I suggested I should take back my earlier post. Please read my posts in their entirety from now on before responding.

You seem to believe that anyone that expresses a viewpoint that differs from your own is a "liberal." This is a problem that I've been finding recently for many so called liberals. In the last election many people expressed the concern that each side was simply a slightly different version of the same viewpoints. That no matter who you were voting for, you were being forced to settle on most of the major issues because both candidates were representatives of corporate interests and a wealthy elite. Now with the disillusionment that many people are feeling over the Bush presidency, it's apparent lies regarding WMD, and the necessity of an Iraq invasion, we're being lumped into a "liberal" group simply because of opposition to the current administration.

The reality is that the Bush administration's fiscal policy is much more liberal than any traditional Republican should approve of. It is engaging in heavy deficit spending that is driving the national debt through the roof and, in my opinion, hurting the economy (despite recent "growth"). I am a fiscal conservative at heart, I believe that you shouldn't spend what you don't have and should work within your means. I recognize that there are times when deficit spending can be necessary, but the current run by Bush and Co. is absurd.

The other traditional position of the Republicans is smaller government and a strict interpretation of the constitution. The recent moral legislation that the government has been passing, influenced by the so called "christian right," is much more similar to the supposed attempts by Democrats and liberals to influence and enforce politically correct speech, and definitely constitutes LARGE government. Also expenditures to create numerous government offices and organisations, including legislation like the patriot acts, bring the government into our lives in ways in which traditional small government advocates would find abhorent. It's excused by the need for national security, but it really amounts to an assault on the Bill of Rights, intentional or not. And simply because I oppose these types of governmental incursions into my daily life I'm labled as "liberal." It makes it very difficult for me to reconcile my personal political beliefs with my supposed political alignment, and even more difficult to defend my views.

[epeemike81]

I'm not trying to knock anyone,epeemike81, I just happen to have read this recently, but the show O'Reilly was on and claimed to have won two Peabodys was "Inside Edition" not 48 hours. They actually won one Polk and it was after O'Reilly wasn't on the show anymore.

thanks for the correction.

-m

[epeemike81]

This is basically what I was sitting down to say. People who think 60 Minutes, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather, the New York Times, NPR and especially Al Franken are not biased need to accept that their perception may be just as skewed as they say the "other side" is.

wait a second, do not group things I DID say weren't biased with things I didn't. Franken is MASSIVELY biased, and would never claim to be otherwise. Jennings and Rather are, I believe, very slightly biased. I CAN discern their views from their coverage, but their coverage is far from propaganda (ahem, fox, ahem).

NYT, NPR are not biased. I can provide examples, if you'd like. for example, there was a show a while back on NPR talking about abortion. they gave the first hour to pro life, the second hour to pro-choice, and didn't deride or interrupt either. ACtually, I'm sometimes disappoointed when I hear a statement I disagree with and KNOW to be logically or factually flawed and the host DOESN'T call the guest on it, despite the fact that I've heard the host demonstrate enough knowledge to know it's wrong. they go FAR out of their way to be fair.

The NYT Editorial page IS a LITTLE left of center, but not NEARLY as dramatically as some think. remember all the pro-war editorials in the Times (Friedman, for example) leading up to the war in Iraq, even back when it was very unpopular with the left?

As for 60 minutes, I recently saw an interview with Hussein's defense attorney which was VERY unflattering: anti-French; Pro-American (in a jingoist manner); and conservative. I have also seen then rip Bush a lot. I also remember them ripping Clinton a lot. they have the "sensationalistic bias," but no systematic bias left or right. bias doesn't exist as much as people say, but where it does, it's largely right of center. thanks to companies like clear channel, the right has gradually taken over a RIDICULOUS amount of the radio airwaves. what we think of as "right wing radio" is actually the LEAST disturbing part of this. the most disturbing is things like Clear Channel censoring the hosts on their music stations. in the ramp up to the war in Iraq, back when it was polling at WELL under 50 percent favorability, many Clear Channel stations ran pro-war rallies organized by their management. none ran anti-war rallies. they didn't (to my knowledge) encourage their stations to run pro-war rallies, but they certainly prevented them from running anti-war ones. the bottom line is that big media is big business, and like most big business tends to be right of center. most networks tend not to let that affect their coverage, though. Some (Fox, Clear Channel) do.

The "liberal media" is one of the great secrets of the right. it is belief in the "liberal media" which diminishes the weight of criticism of republicans, and increases weight of criticism of democrats. They get to say that the "liberal media" is acting as surrogates and attacking Bush for Kerry, while simultaneously playing that role (medals, etc) for Bush. I heard one right wing radio station criticize Kerry for about a half hour for buying a bicycle to get to work, because it cost $7,000. the implication, of course, is that Kerry is wealthy and unconnected to the common man. no mention, though, of anything similar on Bush's part, whose concerns are clearly just aligned with the common man's. He would never buy something so extravagent as a $7000 dollar bicycle! just little bobbles like the Texas Rangers![/rant]

Consider the Nightline controversy, though. was it politically motivated? maybe. that doesn't make it any less meaningful, but by accusing the "liberal media," the right wing has found another way to hide the bodies (I'm assuming you're all aware that they've been returning the dead at 2 am and prosecuting photographers who dare to take pictures of the dead returning).

As the Daily Show (a WONDERFULLY biased program) put it: "It's clear, Jon, that the facts of the war in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda."

-m

[jeff]

Very well said, Mike.

And, it's okay for the NYT or any other paper to have a slant on their editorial page - that's what the editorial page is for. It's not okay when people purport to be presenting the news (or "fair and open" inquiry and debate) while fostering their agenda, as Fox and the other outlets do.

As far as counting minutes and interruptions: that cuts both ways. O"Reilly and Hannity cut off their opponents even more than the mainstream interviewers, and then cut their opponents mikes when they start losing the argument. In addition to that "subtle" evidence of bias, they directly make misleading and gratuitous ad hominem attacks on those they disagree with, far beyond what is done by mainstream media.

I also agree with fencingguy's comments. Much of what Bush's administration is doing runs entirely counter to traditional conservative viewpoints: judicial activism, proposing changes to the constitution to suit their social agendas, amassing of incredible deficits, states rights except when a state does something they disaprove of... Simply calling people "liberal" or "conservative" is barely meaningful at this time.

[fencingguy]

BTW, epeemike81, I think I mixed a couple of posts together with the BBC and NPR as liberal post I made earlier. I don't think anyone actually said they were liberal before I made the post, but it seems more relevant now.

[jeff]

Consider the Nightline controversy, though. was it politically motivated? maybe. that doesn't make it any less meaningful, but by accusing the "liberal media," the right wing has found another way to hide the bodies (I'm assuming you're all aware that they've been returning the dead at 2 am and prosecuting photographers who dare to take pictures of the dead returning). -m

The Nightline censorship (show being dropped on stations owned by a conservative Republican) was strongly protested by that well-known "liberal", Sen. John McCain. Why stick to subtle biases when you can go overt?

[Tireur]

wait a second, Jennings and Rather are, I believe, very slightly biased. I CAN discern their views from their coverage, but their coverage is far from propaganda (ahem, fox, ahem).

NYT, NPR are not biased. I The NYT Editorial page IS a LITTLE left of center, but not NEARLY as dramatically as some think.
-m

Again, this is your perception based on your own views.

I have listened to NPR programs where the hosts are just as far to the left as Hannity is the right. I've seen liberals not allow conservatives to speak just as frequently as the other way.

Whoever is was that said above "anyone who disagrees with you is a liberal". No. I hate extremism on the right as much as the left. They both scare me.

I am a true "center of the road" the most dangerous place to be.

I just don't like all this bs about the right leaning media. I see much more bias on the left than the right, but not (generally) as loud, except for Franken, Randi Rhodes, et al.

[Tireur]

Very well said, Mike.

And, it's okay for the NYT or any other paper to have a slant on their editorial page - .

Absolutley. It's the headlines and the reporting. They tend to editorialize in their "news" stories. Conservative rags do too. Just don't tell me that the vast majority of the media is conservative.

Ultra-conservatives obviously don't think Fox has a slant, liberals don't think the Times has one. Give me a break.

My wife was as AP news editor for 10 years. Said most of the reporters had strong liberal leanings and framed their stories to suit their political ideals (very smug in their righteousness). She (also a middle of the roader) got fed up with the constant one-sidedness of it and left AP. She had gotten into it to report the news, not politcal agendas.

[Tireur]

Consider the Nightline controversy, though. was it politically motivated? maybe. that doesn't make it any less meaningful, but by accusing the "liberal media," the right wing has found another way to hide the bodies (I'm assuming you're all aware that they've been returning the dead at 2 am and prosecuting photographers who dare to take pictures of the dead returning).-m

On one hand I agree with you here. On the other I think it was in bad taste to do this during "sweeps week". I think the appropriate time would have been Memorial Day. It seemed ill-timed to me.