NationStates Jolt Archive

I know we've talked about this time and again (mostly as flames about info we don't like because it threatens our POV) but I found this article through Fark.com

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,11266809%255E1702,00.html

Its about ABC being cleared on suspection of anti-american bias concerning the Iraq conflict.

I would like to discuss which stations do you think are biased and why.

I think we can all agree Fox has an impressive and well-known right-wing bias and therefore would like to leave that one out.

CBS is thought to have at least some bias (where Rather was concerned) but if someone wants to bring up CBS could they point out (with links) where CBS has bias in its COMPREHENSIVE coverage of the Iraq war?

Bumpity bump.

All stations are biased, some more than others. . .

CBS and CNN = liberal
FOX = conservative

The only unbiased "news source" is The Daily Show! :D

It sounds unbelieveable to me, but it's gospel among all US conservatives.

If the US media is so overwhelmingly one-sided and liberal, then why has "liberal" become a dirty word in the US?

Is it true?

-snip-
I've heard TONS of things . . . that reporters themselves are liberal but editors are conservative, media is biased this or that-way, etc

It helps our case that the majority of journalists self-identify as 'liberal'.
The case for the liberal media (http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp)
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/basicsimages/mediab21.gif

How dare you bring fact into this discussion!

Our media is overwhelmingly and blatantly pro-communist. I'll list some examples:

1.In the 1930s, The New York Times sent Walter Duranty to Moscow as a foreign correspondent. There, he covered up Stalin's genocide against the Ukraine, for which he won the Pulitzer Prize.
2.Herbert Matthews of The New York Times wrote articles strongly sympathetic to the communists in Spain, while the communists there were committing barbarous atrocities, such as impaling people naked on meat hooks, etc.
2.In the 1940s, the media launched a massive smear campaign against our oldest and most loyal ally, Chiang Kai-shek, while promoting Mao Tse-tung as an "agrarian reformer," a "true man of the people," etc., all the while denying that Mao was a communist.
3.In the 1950s, the media did the same thing for Fidel Castro as they had done for Mao Tse-tung. They covered up the terroristic activities of the Cuban revolutionaries, promoted Castro as a heroic freedom fighter, and denied he was a communist, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary provided by Earl E.T. Smith (our ambassador to Cuba at the time), Major Pedro Luis Diaz Lanz (Castro's former personal pilot), and ambassador Edwin Pauley (who had witnessed the Bogotazo first-hand). Herbert Matthews did everything he could to undermine the Cuban government and aid the Castro revolution. Without Matthews, Castro would never have come to power. Earlier in the decade, Joe McCarthy suffered the same fate as did all other anticommunists: ridicule by the press, destruction by our government.
4.In the 1960s, the media launched one of their ugliest smear campaigns in history- against the U.S. military, all the while going to extreme lengths to cover up the atrocities committed against the South Vietnamese by the Viet Cong. Other smear victims were Nguyen Cao Ky and Nguyen Van Thieu. Our media's foreign correspondents also mocked the workers in the U.S. embassy in Cambodia who warned what would happen if the Khmer Rouge came to power. I wonder how many of those correspondents are laughing now.
5.In the 1970s, the media again launched major smearathons- against Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi of Iran, Ian Smith of Rhodesia, and Anastasio Somoza Debayle of Nicaragua. Dan Blather and Jack Anderson did far more damage to the Somoza government with their propaganda and lies than the Sandinistas could ever manage to do. The result? Rhodesia and Nicaragua became totalitarian communist dictatorships, and Iran became a totalitarian Muslim extremist dictatorship.
6.In the 1980s, the media practically worshipped Gorbachev, whose regime was not only responsible for the massacre of over 500,000 Afghanis, but also continued to sponsor and support terrorists and totalitarian regimes around the world. As always, they continued to smear anticommunists, including, among others, P.W. Botha, Ferdinand Marcos, and Augusto Pinochet (who they continue to smear to this day).
7.Another darling of the media was Nelson Mandela, who the media glorified, lauded, and virtually deified in the 1990s, while at the same time launching smear campaigns against anticommunist South Africans such as Lucas Mangope and Prince Mangosuthu Gatsha Buthelezi.

CNN = liberal

You must get some other CNN in the US if you wish to claim it liberal.

All major media in the US are right wing, only Americans are blind to it.

All major media in the US are right wing, only Americans are blind to it.
Well, umm, no. The trend is for television and radio to be slightly conservative overall, and for the newspaper to be fairly liberal overall.

All stations are biased, some more than others. . .

CBS and CNN = liberal
FOX = conservative

The only unbiased "news source" is The Daily Show! :DI like the Daily show, but I have to ask you to rethink your assesment of CNN.

True it is usually thought of as liberal, but why? Because it is a true world wide news organization and reports other than the American POV?

I work in the Facilities Services Department of a mid sized Hospital. After some of the guys called CNN 'Liberal Bastards' and switched the channel offering on the limited # of basic cable channels we show throughout the facility from CNN to FOX, I gave it some thought. I didn't see anything really different in what CNN was reporting from the other networks, if you compared like stories. What made CNN different was they reported more from their foreign offices and reported stories that impacted other nations and showed their POV. This clearly pisses off some conservatives. I was just balanced reporting in my opinion, but some people just want it from the US perspective and find the other stuff annoying.

It helps our case that the majority of journalists self-identify as 'liberal'.
The case for the liberal media (http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/welcome.asp)
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/basicsimages/mediab21.gif

You're linking to Media Research and are hoping to show that they have an unbiased case built to show liberal media bias. PLEASE. They link to CNSNews for Christ sake and are an obvious conservative biased site. Naturally, they'll say that there is a liberal media bias.

Way to pick and choose a select few cases to prove your point.

Which logical fallacy is that again?

EDIT: Did you ever think that MAYBE the reason journalists tend to be more liberal is that they see more of the world and process more information about world events which could mean that they know that a lot of neoconservative polices are disasterous. Ya know, that they have KNOWLEDGE of what a good and bad idea is and are unlikely to sacrifice their integrity for financial gain which would blind them to this distinction.

Personally, I would like to know who made that little pie chart and how it was made.

Hmmm using a biased site to complain about bias?

Isn't that like a lawyer complaining an insurenceman called him a thief?

You're linking to Media Research and are hoping to show that they have an unbiased case built to show liberal media bias. PLEASE. They link to CNSNews for Christ sake and are an obvious conservative biased site. Naturally, they'll say that there is a liberal media bias.

Way to pick and choose a select few cases to prove your point.

Personally, I would like to know who made that little pie chart and how it was made.
Perhaps you should actually read the information in the link instead of just the name of the site. You assume that the information I give is wrong just because it comes from a source you think is biased? Should we therefore ignore and disparage all information from all sources labeled as not perfectly impartial? What would you suggest for these sources, since the debate itself is about trying to determine which sources would be unbiased? In any case, the data for the pie graph came from a poll conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors (http://www.asne.org/index.cfm) , a source with a self-admitted liberal bias. So there you have it... it is smart not to trust data just becuase someone posts it, but you could at least go through the trouble of assessing its validity before you declare it is wrong.
So journalists are liberal because they know more about current events, not because they went into journalism as liberals. Speaking of logical fallacies... this sounds conspicuosly like one of the Southern arguments for slavery- southerners were pro-slavery because they knew the most about living side-by-side with blacks.

All media outlets are extremely biased. This isn't a bad thing really, as people will flock to the news source that more often than not agrees with their point of views.
Since Kronkite, I'm not that aware of ANY unbiased reporters or even networks existing today.
Or maybe it's just more out in the open.
In a free market, everyone can decide for themselves which they'll turn to for news.
Nothing lost IMO.

Hmmm using a biased site to complain about bias?

Isn't that like a lawyer complaining an insurenceman called him a thief?

You are about to be sued for insurance fraud. :D

Well, umm, no. The trend is for television and radio to be slightly conservative overall, and for the newspaper to be fairly liberal overall.
I wish my area had a liberal newspaper. The one in my area is so ultra-conservative that they will print false information to make liberals look bad or conservatives, particullarily republicans better.

Our media is overwhelmingly and blatantly pro-communist. I'll list some examples:

1.In the 1930s, The New York Times sent Walter Duranty to Moscow as a foreign correspondent. There, he covered up Stalin's genocide against the Ukraine, for which he won the Pulitzer Prize.
2.Herbert Matthews of The New York Times wrote articles strongly sympathetic to the communists in Spain, while the communists there were committing barbarous atrocities, such as impaling people naked on meat hooks, etc.
2.In the 1940s, the media launched a massive smear campaign against our oldest and most loyal ally, Chiang Kai-shek, while promoting Mao Tse-tung as an "agrarian reformer," a "true man of the people," etc., all the while denying that Mao was a communist.
3.In the 1950s, the media did the same thing for Fidel Castro as they had done for Mao Tse-tung. They covered up the terroristic activities of the Cuban revolutionaries, promoted Castro as a heroic freedom fighter, and denied he was a communist, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary provided by Earl E.T. Smith (our ambassador to Cuba at the time), Major Pedro Luis Diaz Lanz (Castro's former personal pilot), and ambassador Edwin Pauley (who had witnessed the Bogotazo first-hand). Herbert Matthews did everything he could to undermine the Cuban government and aid the Castro revolution. Without Matthews, Castro would never have come to power. Earlier in the decade, Joe McCarthy suffered the same fate as did all other anticommunists: ridicule by the press, destruction by our government.
4.In the 1960s, the media launched one of their ugliest smear campaigns in history- against the U.S. military, all the while going to extreme lengths to cover up the atrocities committed against the South Vietnamese by the Viet Cong. Other smear victims were Nguyen Cao Ky and Nguyen Van Thieu. Our media's foreign correspondents also mocked the workers in the U.S. embassy in Cambodia who warned what would happen if the Khmer Rouge came to power. I wonder how many of those correspondents are laughing now.
5.In the 1970s, the media again launched major smearathons- against Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi of Iran, Ian Smith of Rhodesia, and Anastasio Somoza Debayle of Nicaragua. Dan Blather and Jack Anderson did far more damage to the Somoza government with their propaganda and lies than the Sandinistas could ever manage to do. The result? Rhodesia and Nicaragua became totalitarian communist dictatorships, and Iran became a totalitarian Muslim extremist dictatorship.
6.In the 1980s, the media practically worshipped Gorbachev, whose regime was not only responsible for the massacre of over 500,000 Afghanis, but also continued to sponsor and support terrorists and totalitarian regimes around the world. As always, they continued to smear anticommunists, including, among others, P.W. Botha, Ferdinand Marcos, and Augusto Pinochet (who they continue to smear to this day).
7.Another darling of the media was Nelson Mandela, who the media glorified, lauded, and virtually deified in the 1990s, while at the same time launching smear campaigns against anticommunist South Africans such as Lucas Mangope and Prince Mangosuthu Gatsha Buthelezi.

Now, I don't know much (actually I know nothing about them) about these people or the context in which these events occured but I do know that lauding Nelson Freaking Mandela would not be a lowpoint in the media's history.

All media outlets are extremely biased. This isn't a bad thing really, as people will flock to the news source that more often than not agrees with their point of views.
Since Kronkite, I'm not that aware of ANY unbiased reporters or even networks existing today.
Or maybe it's just more out in the open.
In a free market, everyone can decide for themselves which they'll turn to for news.
Nothing lost IMO.
Exactly. I'm not sure if it is really possible to be truly unbiased, though many outlets claim to be. What we have to do is realize that what we are hearing can be biased and keep that in mind when forming our own opinions. I look back sadly on all the years when I assumed everything I heard on the nightly news was perfectly true.

I wish my area had a liberal newspaper. The one in my area is so ultra-conservative that they will print false information to make liberals look bad or conservatives, particullarily republicans better.
Where are you from?

Now, I don't know much (actually I know nothing about them) about these people or the context in which these events occured but I do know that lauding Nelson Freaking Mandela would not be a lowpoint in the media's history.
True, although they sometimes seem to think he is some kind of deity. His other points were quite valid, though I would not go so far as to say that they prove that 'the media was communist'. Perhaps 'some journalists were communist sympathizers'.

True, although they sometimes seem to think he is some kind of deity. His other points were quite valid, though I would not go so far as to say that they prove that 'the media was communist'. Perhaps 'some journalists were communist sympathizers'.

I never said they were communists, only that they tended to have a pro-communist bias. The only communist in the media I'm aware of was Wilfred Burchett, an Australian KGB agent that helped the communists interrogate our POWs during the Korean and Vietnam Wars.

Our media is overwhelmingly and blatantly pro-communist. I'll list some examples:

1.In the 1930s, The New York Times sent Walter Duranty to Moscow as a foreign correspondent. There, he covered up Stalin's genocide against the Ukraine, for which he won the Pulitzer Prize.
2.Herbert Matthews of The New York Times wrote articles strongly sympathetic to the communists in Spain, while the communists there were committing barbarous atrocities, such as impaling people naked on meat hooks, etc.
2.In the 1940s, the media launched a massive smear campaign against our oldest and most loyal ally, Chiang Kai-shek, while promoting Mao Tse-tung as an "agrarian reformer," a "true man of the people," etc., all the while denying that Mao was a communist.
3.In the 1950s, the media did the same thing for Fidel Castro as they had done for Mao Tse-tung. They covered up the terroristic activities of the Cuban revolutionaries, promoted Castro as a heroic freedom fighter, and denied he was a communist, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary provided by Earl E.T. Smith (our ambassador to Cuba at the time), Major Pedro Luis Diaz Lanz (Castro's former personal pilot), and ambassador Edwin Pauley (who had witnessed the Bogotazo first-hand). Herbert Matthews did everything he could to undermine the Cuban government and aid the Castro revolution. Without Matthews, Castro would never have come to power. Earlier in the decade, Joe McCarthy suffered the same fate as did all other anticommunists: ridicule by the press, destruction by our government.
4.In the 1960s, the media launched one of their ugliest smear campaigns in history- against the U.S. military, all the while going to extreme lengths to cover up the atrocities committed against the South Vietnamese by the Viet Cong. Other smear victims were Nguyen Cao Ky and Nguyen Van Thieu. Our media's foreign correspondents also mocked the workers in the U.S. embassy in Cambodia who warned what would happen if the Khmer Rouge came to power. I wonder how many of those correspondents are laughing now.
5.In the 1970s, the media again launched major smearathons- against Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi of Iran, Ian Smith of Rhodesia, and Anastasio Somoza Debayle of Nicaragua. Dan Blather and Jack Anderson did far more damage to the Somoza government with their propaganda and lies than the Sandinistas could ever manage to do. The result? Rhodesia and Nicaragua became totalitarian communist dictatorships, and Iran became a totalitarian Muslim extremist dictatorship.
6.In the 1980s, the media practically worshipped Gorbachev, whose regime was not only responsible for the massacre of over 500,000 Afghanis, but also continued to sponsor and support terrorists and totalitarian regimes around the world. As always, they continued to smear anticommunists, including, among others, P.W. Botha, Ferdinand Marcos, and Augusto Pinochet (who they continue to smear to this day).
7.Another darling of the media was Nelson Mandela, who the media glorified, lauded, and virtually deified in the 1990s, while at the same time launching smear campaigns against anticommunist South Africans such as Lucas Mangope and Prince Mangosuthu Gatsha Buthelezi.

lol

is that from my aryan brethren at stormfront?

lol

is that from my aryan brethren at stormfront?

No, it's not. Read some of their old articles from those periods and see for yourself.

I wish my area had a liberal newspaper. The one in my area is so ultra-conservative that they will print false information to make liberals look bad or conservatives, particullarily republicans better.
False information? Must be a lazy editor - it is easy enough to do that with the truth.

I never said they were communists, only that they tended to have a pro-communist bias. The only communist in the media I'm aware of was Wilfred Burchett, an Australian KGB agent that helped the communists interrogate our POWs during the Korean and Vietnam Wars.

Maybe, but in the 1930's and 1940's it was ok to like the communists, because they were against the Nazis. That is also why many of Stalin's atrocities were covered up by the media.

No, it's not. Read some of their old articles from those periods and see for yourself.
well i don't disagree with the fact that the media took positions for or against the people mentioned, but i'm not sure that makes them commies. afterall the allies of the us mentioned are a bit of a rogues gallery of our most brutal strongmen, most incompetent budglers and most obvious puppets. i think a rule of thumb would be that competent allies and proxies were generally treated with respect by the media, but some were just to crappy to tolerate for the sake of supporting us foriegn policy(chaing- kia-chek excepted be wasn't that bad).

now as to stalin, yeah the liberal left fell for his sh1t in the 30s hook line and sinker. castro was a tough read in the early days, and mandela gave up power volentarily(that puts him alone with washington amoungst revolutionary leaders), that's gotta show a certain depth of character .

Where are you from?

Southern Utah.

I've said it a thousand times, but I guess I'm going to make it a thousand-one. In the vast majority of cases, the media doesn't have a political bias. They have a corporate bias. They, like almost every other multinational corporation, are concerned first, last, and in all ways in between, with profits over everything else. If there's an overall bias, it's in favor of big business and in favor of what gets ratings (and therefore raises ad revenues). Right now, the Republican party is the biggest friend of the corporate media, so it seems like there's a bias in favor of them, but if the Democratic party were to become more of a media whore party, they'd change over in a heartbeat.

Southern Utah.
Closer to Moab or Zion? I've been hiking in Utah a couple of times and have been completely awed by the natural beauty there. I wouldn't live there on a bet, but it's gorgeous country to visit. :D

Maybe, but in the 1930's and 1940's it was ok to like the communists, because they were against the Nazis. That is also why many of Stalin's atrocities were covered up by the media.
That is true.

We had numerous propoganda films in favor of the Soviets, as Nazi Germany was becoming a larger and larger threat.

And of course once the War was over, the propoganda turned swiftly against the USSR.