worst news network

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

EVERY POLL of decision makers in the mass media has determined that 90% of them vote for the Dems.

Does that mean that 10% do not vote for Democrats? IOW, they vote straight Republican, and do not split their tickets? If so, I can see that would cause you great consternation.

Burk, please tell us about newspaper endorsements, too … how they break down among candidates.

 

[BassManPatsFan]

Burk, I respect that you're sticking up for your beliefs, but didn't this thread sort of cross the political line a while ago? Although, if there is any "Jew Hater" sort of name calling going on around here, I might have to get in on some of the action. Oy vey!
-Alex

 

[burk48237]

Burk, I respect that you're sticking up for your beliefs, but didn't this thread sort of cross the political line a while ago? Although, if there is any "Jew Hater" sort of name calling going on around here, I might have to get in on some of the action. Oy vey!
-Alex

Bob has an unusual memory, he must get that checked.

 

[burk48237]

Whatever. You already used "Jew haters" on some of us once, which my Jewish friends thought was hilarious when I told them.

Thats surprising, I didn't know liberals had a sense of humor.
Please link to these "Jew Hater" comments. I do recall saying that some specific beliefs like calling for the genocide of three million Jews is Anti-semitic. If thats what your referring to, your further gone then I thought

 

[BartmanPDX]

EVERY POLL of decision makers in the mass media has determined that 90% of them vote for the Dems. But there just moderates :

Got a link to this? I mean hard facts, not just speculation, and coming from an objective survey. Otherwise, it just seems like baseless, polemic exaggeration, which carries little weight. I think even you would have to admit that NBC, CNN etc. aren't even in the same ballpark as Air America Radio. If your source includes print media in arriving at that figure, then it should also include talk radio show hosts and their staffs, or it's not a full picture of the mass media.

The media always criticizes those in power. That's their job. It happened during the Clinton years, and now it's happening to Bush. Remember the constant coverage of Monica Lewinsky? Whitewater?

FWIW, our local "liberal" paper here in Oregon officially endorsed Bush in the last election. Print media often tends to be more liberal, catering to their audience (which tends to be more liberal). People who listen to AM talk radio, OTOH, tend to be more conservative, and the political leaning of AM talk radio hosts reflects their audience as well.

 

[soulgeezer]

Got a link to this? I mean hard facts, not just speculation, and coming from an objective survey.

Seek out this article:

A Measure of Media Bias., By: Groseclose, Tim, Milyo, Jeffrey, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 00335533, Nov2005, Vol. 120, Issue 4

It's available through EBSCO, which you can probably link to through your local library's Web site. I think you'll be surprised just how much scholarly work has been done on this, and just how egregious the results are.

There is, in fact, media bias -- Left and right. However, the number of right-leaning news outlets is grossly outnumbered by the left-leaners. And, the lefties tend to be much more mass market (mainstream TV networks, large city newspapers) than the righties (cable news, a couple of papers in major political centers).

ABC, NBC, CBS, the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal (#1!), the Washington Post, and the LA Times are the most left-leaning news outlets in the country. They're also the most accessible and therefore the most watched and most read.

Bias goes both ways, but the fact is that an awful lot of people who go into the news business do so because they "want to make a difference." Interestingly, the "difference" these people want to make is often one with a left-leaning agenda.

Anyone who's been to college has met journalism majors who dress like hippies and spend half their lives eating tofu and attending meaningless protests. These are the reporters of tomorrow; or, in the case of people like me who went to school ten years ago, they are the reporters of today.

Bias is real and measurable. Read the above article. It's from a reputable, peer reviewed journal and contains a lot of very good information. If nothing else, you'll learn a bit about the distribution of bias in US media today.

 

[BartmanPDX]

Seek out this article:

A Measure of Media Bias., By: Groseclose, Tim, Milyo, Jeffrey, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 00335533, Nov2005, Vol. 120, Issue 4

It's available through EBSCO, which you can probably link to through your local library's Web site. I think you'll be surprised just how much scholarly work has been done on this, and just how egregious the results are.

There is, in fact, media bias -- Left and right. However, the number of right-leaning news outlets is grossly outnumbered by the left-leaners. And, the lefties tend to be much more mass market (mainstream TV networks, large city newspapers) than the righties (cable news, a couple of papers in major political centers).

ABC, NBC, CBS, the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal (#1!), the Washington Post, and the LA Times are the most left-leaning news outlets in the country. They're also the most accessible and therefore the most watched and most read.

Bias goes both ways, but the fact is that an awful lot of people who go into the news business do so because they "want to make a difference." Interestingly, the "difference" these people want to make is often one with a left-leaning agenda.

Anyone who's been to college has met journalism majors who dress like hippies and spend half their lives eating tofu and attending meaningless protests. These are the reporters of tomorrow; or, in the case of people like me who went to school ten years ago, they are the reporters of today.

Bias is real and measurable. Read the above article. It's from a reputable, peer reviewed journal and contains a lot of very good information. If nothing else, you'll learn a bit about the distribution of bias in US media today.

Sounds good. I'll look into it. I still doubt they include talk radio, however, which is a huge source of news for millions of people, and has a measurable conservative bias.

ABC, NBC, CBS, the NY Times, the Wall Street Journal (#1!), the Washington Post, and the LA Times are the most left-leaning news outlets in the country.

Surely you can't call the Wall Street Journal left-leaning, though. And there are many news outlets which lean MUCH further to the left than the ones you have listed above. I'll say it again: ABC, CBS, and NBC aren't even close to being liberal like Air America or the Nation. If I had the time, I could cite many examples of their lack of liberal bias -- one obvious instance that springs to mind is their utter lack of investigation of voting in Ohio in the 2004 elections.

Anyone who's been to college has met journalism majors who dress like hippies and spend half their lives eating tofu and attending meaningless protests. These are the reporters of tomorrow; or, in the case of people like me who went to school ten years ago, they are the reporters of today.

OK, now you're just spouting.

 

[burk48237]

Got a link to this? I mean hard facts, not just speculation, and coming from an objective survey. Otherwise, it just seems like baseless, polemic exaggeration, which carries little weight. I think even you would have to admit that NBC, CNN etc. aren't even in the same ballpark as Air America Radio. If your source includes print media in arriving at that figure, then it should also include talk radio show hosts and their staffs, or it's not a full picture of the mass media.

The media always criticizes those in power. That's their job. It happened during the Clinton years, and now it's happening to Bush. Remember the constant coverage of Monica Lewinsky? Whitewater?

FWIW, our local "liberal" paper here in Oregon officially endorsed Bush in the last election. Print media often tends to be more liberal, catering to their audience (which tends to be more liberal). People who listen to AM talk radio, OTOH, tend to be more conservative, and the political leaning of AM talk radio hosts reflects their audience as well.

Here's a start. Wether or not you disagree with these sites, ALL of them site different main stream polls from groups like Gallop, Zogby, and Pew. That clearly show more then a two to one margin of liberals making news decisions. And they also show that in every national election, the major decision makers for the news media have voted overwhelmingly to the left of the country.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias

Invalid Link Removed

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

Invalid Link Removed

[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

 

[soulgeezer]

Surely you can't call the Wall Street Journal left-leaning, though. And there are many news outlets which lean MUCH further to the left than the ones you have listed above. I'll say it again: ABC, CBS, and NBC aren't even close to being liberal like Air America or the Nation. If I had the time, I could cite many examples of their lack of liberal bias -- one obvious instance that springs to mind is their utter lack of investigation of voting in Ohio in the 2004 elections.

In fact, the article comments on the apparent surprise of the Wall Street Journal claiming the number one spot. But, none of the information cited above is my opinion; these are the results of a scholarly, peer-reviewed survey.

And, just as an aside (and I've got nothing to back this up), isn't it possible they investigated the situation you mention and there was nothing to report? Or, did you do your own investigation and have information that they're refusing to disseminate? Just because Al Frankin or Jesse Jackson says it's so, doesn't make it the case.

OK, now you're just spouting.

Spouting? Yeah, a little bit. But, based on my experience, what I've said about journalism students is true. They don't choose this major because they want to stand around passively, watching things happen. At the very least, they believe that control of what gets reported is as important as the reporting itself. They think they can use their position to influence people's thinking. All you have to do is think about it - or, even better, ask one of them - and it makes perfect sense.

As to your previous comment about talk radio, whether it's Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken, it's important to remember that talk radio makes no claims of objectivity. Talk radio hosts generally lay their biases on the line. In fact, the "news" is what interrupts talk radio every thirty minutes or so.

Talk radio is editorializing, just as most newspapers and other media outlets have OP/ED pages or commentators. The interesting thing is to look at the OP/ED coming out of the major news outlets. To a far greater degree, the editorials provided by these organizations lean to the left than to the right.

Also, magazines like the Nation, National Review, New Republic, etc., do not claim to be objective news sources. These magazines exist to spout a party line and to preach to the choir. They are book-length collections of editorials that lay no claim to objectivity.

Again, this is not my opinion. Read the article -- These conclusions are based on a long and well-researched study that goes into real depth and uses statistical methodologies to arrive at its conclusions.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

Thats surprising, I didn't know liberals had a sense of humor.
Please link to these "Jew Hater" comments. I do recall saying that some specific beliefs like calling for the genocide of three million Jews is Anti-semitic. If thats what your referring to, your further gone then I thought

You know that it was in TPA, so there's nothing left to link to. And it had nothing to do with genocide except maybe in your mind.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

So "wanting to make a difference" through journalism is inherently a liberal bias? That's essentially saying the profession itself is inherently liberal. (What would "wanting to be ineffectual" through journalism be?)

If that's how you see it, that's how you see it. Maybe "wanting to make a difference" through engineering is also a liberal bias.

 

[soulgeezer]

My point is this: Claiming to be "objective," as most news reporters and outlets do, and stating that you want to "make a difference" are mutually exclusive. I didn't say it was inherently a *liberal* bias, only that bias is indicated. The fact that most people who go into the field are liberal probably has to do with the fact that self-described, college-age liberals are, I think, more likely to be politically active than their peers. They are also more likely to believe that it's their job to change the world and the way others think. Arrogant, yes, but I like it, too!

 

[Dave Siff]

Kiran Chetry from Fox & Friends is now on CNN. Her contract negotiations with Fox broke down yesterday, and she walked. She was on Fox yesterday morning, and she's on CNN this morning. Didn't take her long to land on her feet. I read speculation on a Fox-fan blog that Chetry was basically "blonded-out" at Fox. Check out the snippy letter from Fox to her agent:
[This invalid link has been removed]

 

[Alan Vorse]

Kiran Chetry from Fox & Friends is now on CNN. Her contract negotiations with Fox broke down yesterday, and she walked. She was on Fox yesterday morning, and she's on CNN this morning. Didn't take her long to land on her feet. I read speculation on a Fox-fan blog that Chetry was basically "blonded-out" at Fox. Check out the snippy letter from Fox to her agent:
[This invalid link has been removed]

Yeah I saw her on there this morning. How does a FOX News type go so quickly over to the "Crescent News Network"? Do these anchors just put on a "show" and go wherever the money is? Or did the supposedly liberal CNN hire a conservative anchor?

 

[Dave Siff]

Yeah I saw her on there this morning. How does a FOX News type go so quickly over to the "Crescent News Network"? Do these anchors just put on a "show" and go wherever the money is? Or did the supposedly liberal CNN hire a conservative anchor?

She seemed perfectly comfortable just reading the news this morning. I think the "Fox & Friends" circle-jerk of Democrat-bashing is an act, scripted by their producers. Any of these anchors can switch gears and do something different. Fox didn't want her anymore, so she went elsewhere.

 

[soulgeezer]

Yeah I saw her on there this morning. How does a FOX News type go so quickly over to the "Crescent News Network"? Do these anchors just put on a "show" and go wherever the money is? Or did the supposedly liberal CNN hire a conservative anchor?

Her agent is William Morris. Isn't this an actor's agency? I think that answers the question right there.

 

[gkbass13]

i think stephen colbert has illustrated how easy it is to put on a political front as an anchor...a lot of his guests didnt even know that it was an act, i think after he spoke before george w. it became common knowledge though.

 

[burk48237]

Yeah I saw her on there this morning. How does a FOX News type go so quickly over to the "Crescent News Network"? Do these anchors just put on a "show" and go wherever the money is? Or did the supposedly liberal CNN hire a conservative anchor?

The same way Greta Van "every-time I see her face I want to puke" Sustrain went to FOX from CNN. I have far more problems with the so-called reporters then the "news readers" and the editors and producers. This is where the liberal bias is blatantly obvious.

MS. Chetray was a hottie though. I never saw her much as I rarely watch Fox and Friends although I appreciate it over Matt Lauer and his bunch who may be the most condescending bunch of no nothings on the air.

 

[Dave Siff]

MS. Chetray was a hottie though.

She still is. She had a more conservative look today, and, unfortunately, she was sitting behind a desk. So, no more shots of those awesome legs.

 

[Bob Lee (QSC)]

Her agent is William Morris. Isn't this an actor's agency? I think that answers the question right there.

AFAIK, William Morris handles actors, authors, broadcast news talent, etc.