Liberal Media Conspiracy

[sealybobo]

Oh, and here is some more examples of liberal media bias:
"Proving that the left cannot tell the difference between “racism” and “criticism,” the AP posted a lengthy March 30 story confusing and conflating the two as it pertains to attacks on President Obama."
Racial Slurs Continue Against Obama Despite Historic Achievement - First 100 Days of Presidency - Politics FOXNews.com


The New York Times killed stories of Obama's links to vote fraud/ACORN during the campaign:
"According to election fraud lawyer Heather Heidelbaugh, The New York Times decided suddenly to drop all efforts last October to publish stories about the Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) because it came to light that ACORN was a big donor to then presidential candidate Barack Obama’s campaign. The Times is said to have told ACORN insider Anita Moncrief that they were dropping the story because it was a “game changer” for the election and might hurt Obama’s campaign."
'New York Times' Spiked Obama Donor Story - The Philadelphia Bulletin Archives


Hillary made a couple of huge diplomatic blunders during her visit to Mexico that we aren't seeing on the news. #1, she told Mexican officials that the US gov't is considering re-upping the assault rifle ban because Mexican drug violence is the "fault" of the US.

Election fraud lawyer Heather who? I found her political contributions when I googled her.

Heather Heidelbaugh - $2,200 in Political Contributions for 2008

Republican.

 

[AllieBaba]

Anyway, not only did Obama's court not know the plans to re-instate the ban, Hillary blamed America for Mexico's drug problem...but I haven't seen that on the news.

 

[AllieBaba]

More convoluted posturing by the left as they scramble to marginalize the right. It is common knowledge (and everyone but the elite knows it) that the liberal media distorts, makes and buries the news as it sees fit.

Examples of liberal media bias:

New Gingrich's $400,000 book deal while he was in Congress resulted in world-wide hate fest. But Hillary's $8 million book deal brought nothing but kudos for her.

60 minutes presented a piece on Michael Bray, an anti-abortion activist who condones violence, with the slant that he has the support of the majority of those who oppose abortion. Jen Roth, a liberal, was even disgusted. Response to Michael Bray's Appearance on 60 Minutes

"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this purpose in many ways: through the selection of topics, distribution of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises." Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), Pantheon Books, NY

"The old argument that the networks and other 'media elites' have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don't sit around in dark corners and plan how we will slant the news. It comes naturally to most reporters"
CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg, Feb 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed.
Source - Times Mirror Center for the people and the Press, May 1995



On the 1992 anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the news was about the Roe v. Wade case, not about the tens of thousands who were protesting it.

And let's consider the media treatment of Anita Hill, who was broadcast live as she attempted to ruin the career of Clarence Thomas..and Paula Jones, who was attacked by Bill Clinton when he was the gov. of Arkansas. Jones has been caricatured as a white trash flake, while Anita was glorified.

They use misleading headlines, and bury stories. For example, they use terms like "gutting" when they refer to Republican medicare trimming proposals..but they use "trimming" when Democrats make the same (or more drastic) proposals.

In 10 days in 1988 4 networks aired 51 evening news stories solely on Quayle's National Guard service, while at the same time questioning "controversies" during the Republican national convention coverage. But the same networks aired only 13 stories in the first 10 days after the news of Clinton's draft-dodging broke.

Pretty damn good rebuttal. I could argue back, but it wouldn't settle anything.

You gave some pretty damn good examples of liberal bias.

I could give you just as many examples to show you that the media is more favorable to the Right, but that would explain the points you made.

So whats going on?

My side thinks they went too easy on Bush and your side thinks they are going too easy on Obama. I don't want them to go easy on any of them.

The media is sort of our last line of defense when it comes to corruption. We need the media to be tough on both parties. You admit they aren't tough enough on Dems and I admit they aren't tough enough on Cons.

At least we agree the media didn't do their job.

If you can provide examples of right wing media bias, please provide them.

 

[michiganFats]

Since this forms a central part of the Conservative ideology I was wondering if and Conservatives would like to expalin how this conspiracy works. Who runs it? Why do the big corporations want a liberal slant to the news? What role do advertisers like GM, Ford and other giant corporations that fund the media play in this?

I think it's a mistake to attribute this to conservatives. There are many Americans who see a slant to the news who aren't members of a political party. I personally don't see a "liberal" or "conservative "slant to the news, but I do see a Big Government slant to the news. When is the last time you heard a national news anchor advocate reducing a government program?

I personally take exception to you trying to portray this as a "right wing" phenomena, because many Americans including myself are not right wing yet still see the injustice in the way the news is broadcast.

I think your real problem is the realization that most of your countrymen think that you are full of crap.

 

[Yurt]

no liberal bias

yeah, when did bush ever get such a glowing report:

Obama takes the world stage on eve of summit

LONDON – He talked nuclear threats with Russia's president and gave an iPod to the queen. And that was only the beginning. It was an eventful first day on the world stage for President Barack Obama, launching new arms control talks, placing China ties on fresh footing and calming fears about the ailing U.S. economy — seemingly everywhere, relaxed and smiling all the while. While wife Michelle attracted breathless attention with every stop, fashionable outfit and sip of tea.

Obama takes the world stage on eve of summit

 

[PoliticalChic]

it's a fact. It wasn't something created by fox news. Fox is the #1 news network because people know what the leftist media does, and were relieved to have a more reasonable and ethical network to turn to.

fox is the #1 news network because the so-called "liberal" cable news networks (cnn and msnbc) and the broadcast networks (abc, cbs, nbc) divide the remaining share of viewers between them, and in fact have a larger combined share of viewers than fox. In fact, nielsen media research reports a much larger growth in primetime viewership for msnbc and cnn in 2008, than for fox, according to

cable news race
thu., march 26, 2009

foxnews o'reilly 3,420,000
foxnews hannity 2,987,000
foxnews beck 2,374,000
foxnews greta 2,160,000
foxnews baier 1,940,000
foxnews shep 1,888,000
msnbc olbermann 1,322,000
cnnhn grace 1,300,000
msnbc maddow 1,208,000
cnn king 1,144,000
cnn cooper 1,118,000

 

[PoliticalChic]

Since this forms a central part of the Conservative ideology I was wondering if and Conservatives would like to expalin how this conspiracy works. Who runs it? Why do the big corporations want a liberal slant to the news? What role do advertisers like GM, Ford and other giant corporations that fund the media play in this?

I think it's a mistake to attribute this to conservatives. There are many Americans who see a slant to the news who aren't members of a political party. I personally don't see a "liberal" or "conservative "slant to the news, but I do see a Big Government slant to the news. When is the last time you heard a national news anchor advocate reducing a government program?

I personally take exception to you trying to portray this as a "right wing" phenomena, because many Americans including myself are not right wing yet still see the injustice in the way the news is broadcast.

I think your real problem is the realization that most of your countrymen think that you are full of crap.

I think this is a problem of definition. Big Government is a liberal viewpoint. Or let's count whether the newsreader or commentator voted Democrat. Either definiton works.


Check out this list, and tell me which are Conservatives:
Dan Rather, Katie Couric, Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Edward R. Murrow, Ted Koppel, Andy Rooney, Leslie Stahl, George Stephanopoulos, Mike Wallace, Barbara Walters, Ed Bradley, Campbell Brown, Jack Cafferty, Walter Cronkite, Jim Lehrer, Roger Grimsby, Soledad O’Brien, Keith Olbermann, Cokie Roberts, Diane Sawyer, Bob Schieffer, Paula Zahn, Sam Donaldson, Brian Williams, Judy Woodruff, David Shuster, Bernard Shaw, Jessica Savitch, Harry Reasoner, Sally Quinn, Gwen Ifill, Douglas Kiker, Charles Kuralt, Roger Mudd, Robert MacNeil, Charles Osgood, Douglas Edwards, John Chancellor, Charles Gibson, Christiane Amanpour, Anderson Cooper, Ann Curry, Marvin Kalb, Bryant Gimbel, Andrea Mitchell, Jeanne Moos, Bill Schneider, Daniel Schoor, Richard Threlkeld, Jake Tapper, Ann Compton, Lester Holt, Michael Beschloss

All card-carrying liberals. So, which of them spread nasty notions about Democrats?



BTW, here is Beschloss making a fool of himself of Imus show:
FREEDOM EDEN: Mike Beschloss, Don Imus, and Barack Obama's IQ

Liberals all.

 

[Jerry]

So, what makes you think all of the names listed above are liberal? Didn't you know that some of them are very conservative? You even list a Nixon speech writer as a liberal. Besides many of these folks are dead.
Why don't you list folks that you think are conservative, living and dead?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So, what makes you think all of the names listed above are liberal? Didn't you know that some of them are very conservative? You even list a Nixon speech writer as a liberal. Besides many of these folks are dead.
Why don't you list folks that you think are conservative, living and dead?

Instead of checking off one or two, how about you provide a list of Conservative newsreaders/commentators?

Or is your thesis that the newsmedia is neutral? Even handed? Gives Republicans and Democrats the same treatment?

Speak up.

 

[Agnapostate]

Why does it matter? Republicans and Democrats are effectively the same anyway. If anything, the vast majority of the media has a corporate bias.

 

[sealybobo]

More convoluted posturing by the left as they scramble to marginalize the right. It is common knowledge (and everyone but the elite knows it) that the liberal media distorts, makes and buries the news as it sees fit.

Examples of liberal media bias:

New Gingrich's $400,000 book deal while he was in Congress resulted in world-wide hate fest. But Hillary's $8 million book deal brought nothing but kudos for her.

60 minutes presented a piece on Michael Bray, an anti-abortion activist who condones violence, with the slant that he has the support of the majority of those who oppose abortion. Jen Roth, a liberal, was even disgusted. Response to Michael Bray's Appearance on 60 Minutes

"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this purpose in many ways: through the selection of topics, distribution of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises." Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), Pantheon Books, NY

"The old argument that the networks and other 'media elites' have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don't sit around in dark corners and plan how we will slant the news. It comes naturally to most reporters"
CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg, Feb 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed.
Source - Times Mirror Center for the people and the Press, May 1995



On the 1992 anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the news was about the Roe v. Wade case, not about the tens of thousands who were protesting it.

And let's consider the media treatment of Anita Hill, who was broadcast live as she attempted to ruin the career of Clarence Thomas..and Paula Jones, who was attacked by Bill Clinton when he was the gov. of Arkansas. Jones has been caricatured as a white trash flake, while Anita was glorified.

They use misleading headlines, and bury stories. For example, they use terms like "gutting" when they refer to Republican medicare trimming proposals..but they use "trimming" when Democrats make the same (or more drastic) proposals.

In 10 days in 1988 4 networks aired 51 evening news stories solely on Quayle's National Guard service, while at the same time questioning "controversies" during the Republican national convention coverage. But the same networks aired only 13 stories in the first 10 days after the news of Clinton's draft-dodging broke.

Pretty damn good rebuttal. I could argue back, but it wouldn't settle anything.

You gave some pretty damn good examples of liberal bias.

I could give you just as many examples to show you that the media is more favorable to the Right, but that would explain the points you made.

So whats going on?

My side thinks they went too easy on Bush and your side thinks they are going too easy on Obama. I don't want them to go easy on any of them.

The media is sort of our last line of defense when it comes to corruption. We need the media to be tough on both parties. You admit they aren't tough enough on Dems and I admit they aren't tough enough on Cons.

At least we agree the media didn't do their job.

If you can provide examples of right wing media bias, please provide them.

The Straight Dope: Did George W. Bush go AWOL during his time in the National Guard?

Yeah, the mainstream media have really kept a lid on this one. We wouldn't know anything about Bush going AWOL if it hadn't been for that obscure underground newspaper the Boston Globe, which broke the story nationally in May 2000. But you're right that coverage has been pretty thin. A few months after the 2000 election, former Bill Clinton adviser Paul Begala said he'd done a Nexis search and found 13,641 stories about Clinton's alleged draft dodging versus 49 about George W. Bush's military record.

 

[sealybobo]

More convoluted posturing by the left as they scramble to marginalize the right. It is common knowledge (and everyone but the elite knows it) that the liberal media distorts, makes and buries the news as it sees fit.

Examples of liberal media bias:

New Gingrich's $400,000 book deal while he was in Congress resulted in world-wide hate fest. But Hillary's $8 million book deal brought nothing but kudos for her.

60 minutes presented a piece on Michael Bray, an anti-abortion activist who condones violence, with the slant that he has the support of the majority of those who oppose abortion. Jen Roth, a liberal, was even disgusted. Response to Michael Bray's Appearance on 60 Minutes

"The societal purpose of the media is to inculcate and defend the economic, social, and political agenda of privileged groups that dominate the domestic society and the state. The media serve this purpose in many ways: through the selection of topics, distribution of concerns, framing of issues, filtering of information, emphasis and tone, and by keeping debate within the bounds of acceptable premises." Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988), Pantheon Books, NY

"The old argument that the networks and other 'media elites' have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don't sit around in dark corners and plan how we will slant the news. It comes naturally to most reporters"
CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg, Feb 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed.
Source - Times Mirror Center for the people and the Press, May 1995



On the 1992 anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the news was about the Roe v. Wade case, not about the tens of thousands who were protesting it.

And let's consider the media treatment of Anita Hill, who was broadcast live as she attempted to ruin the career of Clarence Thomas..and Paula Jones, who was attacked by Bill Clinton when he was the gov. of Arkansas. Jones has been caricatured as a white trash flake, while Anita was glorified.

They use misleading headlines, and bury stories. For example, they use terms like "gutting" when they refer to Republican medicare trimming proposals..but they use "trimming" when Democrats make the same (or more drastic) proposals.

In 10 days in 1988 4 networks aired 51 evening news stories solely on Quayle's National Guard service, while at the same time questioning "controversies" during the Republican national convention coverage. But the same networks aired only 13 stories in the first 10 days after the news of Clinton's draft-dodging broke.

Pretty damn good rebuttal. I could argue back, but it wouldn't settle anything.

You gave some pretty damn good examples of liberal bias.

I could give you just as many examples to show you that the media is more favorable to the Right, but that would explain the points you made.

So whats going on?

My side thinks they went too easy on Bush and your side thinks they are going too easy on Obama. I don't want them to go easy on any of them.

The media is sort of our last line of defense when it comes to corruption. We need the media to be tough on both parties. You admit they aren't tough enough on Dems and I admit they aren't tough enough on Cons.

At least we agree the media didn't do their job.

If you can provide examples of right wing media bias, please provide them.

A study of ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News in the year 2001 showed that 92 percent of all U.S. sources interviewed were white, 85 percent were male and, where party affiliation was identifiable, 75 percent were Republican.”

Pay attention to the Sunday Political Shows. They'll always have on 1 liberal against 2 or more Conservatives. Hardly fair.

And sure they give us MSNBC and make it blatently liberal. But doesn't that hurt their credibility being blatently liberal? Then mission accomplished for the corporations that own the station. They can pretend to be fair and at the same time control the message.

They would be stupid to ignore such a big market share, and by owning MSNBC, they control the content of the show.

So how far can Rachel Maddow go? Only as far as her bosses let her. Do you think they would dare have a show about how the oil companies were gouging us if Exxon was one of their advertisers? Or a show on abolishing the Federal Reserve? Closest I ever saw on that was Ron Paul went on Glen Beck, and Beck tried to make a fool of him. This is why I don't buy it that Beck is a Libertarian. He's just a radical right winger who has libertarian traits.

Randi Rhodes turned down tv jobs because they wanted to control her show.

See what you are missing Allie? The corporations that purchased the media after Clinton deregulated it want to control the message. That should be proof enough.

So until MSNBC is owned/run by liberals, it won't be liberal enough for me. But I bet Fox is conservative enough for you. There isn't anything Fox won't discuss, no matter how untrue. As long as it is an anti liberal message, go for it.

Also, I thought about you last night. Chris Matthews said it again. He said he got a thrill up his leg when he saw the Obama's meeting with other world leaders. Who cares? If that's all it takes to be a liberal, then screw it.

I care more about what Chris is reporting than I do the little snide remarks that come out of his mouth.

I think you are easily destracted by their chatter and you forget to pay attention to the message they are sending.

Or sometimes its what they aren't saying that makes them conservative.

For example, Delay went on Chris Matthews and Delay lied a bunch of times. Did Matthews call him out on it? No. He had a woman on who was clearly no match for the Hammer. So if anything, Matthews is a centrist. Not good enough for me.

 

[sealybobo]

This link gives some pretty powerful arguments for why the media isn't liberal.

Myths Debunked - The Liberal Media

 

[AllieBaba]

You are so full of shit, it's a waste of time to respond.

 

[Yurt]

Pretty damn good rebuttal. I could argue back, but it wouldn't settle anything.

You gave some pretty damn good examples of liberal bias.

I could give you just as many examples to show you that the media is more favorable to the Right, but that would explain the points you made.

So whats going on?

My side thinks they went too easy on Bush and your side thinks they are going too easy on Obama. I don't want them to go easy on any of them.

The media is sort of our last line of defense when it comes to corruption. We need the media to be tough on both parties. You admit they aren't tough enough on Dems and I admit they aren't tough enough on Cons.

At least we agree the media didn't do their job.

If you can provide examples of right wing media bias, please provide them.

The Straight Dope: Did George W. Bush go AWOL during his time in the National Guard?

Yeah, the mainstream media have really kept a lid on this one. We wouldn't know anything about Bush going AWOL if it hadn't been for that obscure underground newspaper the Boston Globe, which broke the story nationally in May 2000. But you're right that coverage has been pretty thin. A few months after the 2000 election, former Bill Clinton adviser Paul Begala said he'd done a Nexis search and found 13,641 stories about Clinton's alleged draft dodging versus 49 about George W. Bush's military record.

that is proof of nothing...a former clinton advisor doing a nexis search...pffft, just google bush's military record and you get 114,000,000 hits...a few months after this election which is more analogous to your situation and i highly doubt that there was only 49 news stories about it, i remember it being brought up frequently...only 49 is highly suspect

 

[sealybobo]

You are so full of shit, it's a waste of time to respond.

They did it again. Last night MSNBC has Ken Blackwell on.

What you fail to realize is that even on liberal shows, right wingers get the opportunity to get their point across.

It is almost as if the GOP makes sure that they get equal time on every show, but they don't want to be forced to return the favor.

I guess thats one of the benefits to owning all the media.

Thus, why the media isn't really liberal.

And don't get me wrong, the liberal on MSNBC made Ken Blackwell look like a fool. But at least Ken Blackwell got to make his points.

Here it is:

Christopher Hitchens Debates Kenneth Blackwell About Religious Influence In America (VIDEO)

 

[sealybobo]

You are so full of shit, it's a waste of time to respond.

They did it again last night. Last night it was Pat Buchanan. Why does liberal MSNBC give conservatives so much air time? Seems fair and balanced to me.

So now I've seen MSNBC have on Tom Delay, Newt, Ken Blackwell and last night Pat Buchanan.

Let me know when O'Reilly has the balls to invite a strong democrat on. Someone like Howard Dean. Or a left version of Delay or Newt.

You'll never see it, because that liberal will expose Bill for being full of shit.

I double dog dare Rush or O'Reilly to invite Randi Rhodes on their shows. It will never happen.

If Rush/O'Reilly are so smart, why are they sooo afraid?

I love letting you right wingers talk away, so long as we get equal time to reply back.

So maybe more shows on tv are liberal. Maybe that is true. But what I am noticing is that liberal is more fair than right wing conservative talk. Right wing talk is mostly lies and bs. IMO

 

[AllieBaba]

O'Reilly begs Dems to come onto his show all the time.

They won't show their cowardly, lying faces.

 

[sealybobo]

Republicans, stop lying! Or maybe you don't even realize that you are FOS.

The Media is not liberal anymore. Not since it was all gobbled up by a few mega corporations.

The media do not have a liberal bias. Conservatives even admit it.
Years ago, Republican party chair Rich Bond explained that conservatives' frequent denunciations of liberal bias in the media were part of a strategy (Washington Post, 8/20/92).
Bill Kristol The press isn't quite as biased and liberal. They're actually conservative sometimes, Kristol said recently on CNN.
Kristol offered up in the spring of 1995. I admit it, Kristol told The New Yorker. The whole idea of the 'liberal media' was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.
The truth is, I've gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive, [Patrick] Buchanan acknowledged in March 1996. He added: I've gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage -- all we could have asked.
The average liberal legislator has a better than 30 percent greater likelihood of being given a political label than the average conservative does. The press describes [Barney] Frank as a liberal two-and-a-half times as frequently as it describes [Dick] Armey as a conservative. It labels [Barbara] Boxer almost twice as often as it labels [Trent] Lott, and labels [Paul] Wellstone more often than [Jesse] Helms.
The findings include:
 On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.
 Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.
 The minority of journalists who do not identify with the center are more likely to identify with the right when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the left when it comes to social issues.
[T]he larger fallacy of the liberal media argument is the idea that reporters and mid-level editors set the editorial agenda at their news organizations. In reality, most journalists have about as much say over what is presented by newspapers and TV news programs as factory workers and foremen have over what a factory manufactures...
But media owners historically have enforced their political views and other preferences by installing senior editors whose careers depend on delivering a news product that fits with the owners prejudices. Mid-level editors and reporters who stray too far from the prescribed path can expect to be demoted or fired. Editorial employees intuitively understand the career risks of going beyond the boundaries.
These limitations were true a century ago when William Randolph Hearst famously studied every days paper from his publishing empire looking for signs of leftist attitudes among his staff. And it is still true in the days of Rupert Murdoch, Jack Welch and the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.
It took conservatives a lot of hard and steady work to push the media rightward. It dishonors that work to continue to presume that -- except for a few liberal columnists -- there is any such thing as the big liberal media. The media world now includes (1) talk radio, (2) cable television and (3) the traditional news sources (newspapers, newsmagazines and the old broadcast networks). Two of these three major institutions tilt well to the right, and the third is under constant pressure to avoid even the pale hint of liberalism. These institutions, in turn, influence the burgeoning world of online news and commentary.
The biggest lie fed the American people by conservative pundits is that the United States is dominated by the liberal media. As if Rupert Murdoch, Michael Eisner, General Electric, Time-Warner AOL and Viacom are owned and operated by liberals.
Not only are these folks ultra-conservatives, but the people they hire to voice their opinions are so far to the right, they give independent journalism a dirty name. No, my friends, the corporate media is in the hands of right-wing kooks parading as moderates and pushing the political envelope further and further to the right.
Myths Debunked - The Liberal Media

Anybody remember this?

Liberal media my ass.

the traditional news sources (newspapers, news magazines and the old broadcast networks). Two of these three major institutions tilt well to the right, and the third is under constant pressure to avoid even the pale hint of liberalism. These institutions, in turn, influence the burgeoning world of online news and commentary.

And now Musk owns Twitter.