NationStates Jolt Archive

I think you might be in the minority. Certainly a large number of Americans consider the media to be biased, either toward the left or right. Actual proof is another thing, this is just how the viewers perceive the content....


As noted last night by the MRC's Brent Baker, "a Rasmussen Reports poll discovered that, by a margin of 2 to 1, the public recognize a liberal bias over a conservative bias on ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, NPR as well as in the New York Times and Washington Post."


http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2007/20070717144258.aspx

Two thirds of Americans are gullible to believe whatever they're told.

LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!


Omg the media is the biased!

MRC, it's not like they're biased.:rolleyes:

Two thirds of Americans are gullible to believe whatever they're told.

LIBERAL MEDIA! (x n...)

Omg the media is the biased!

Right. Consensus isn't truth.

I might add, at the risk of sounding somewhat less anti-american than usual ;), that most people in the world are gullible enough to believe whatever they're told by media, priests, politicians, militaries etc...

How bout any station Rush is on? Or Glenn "I a non-Republican Conservative Prick" Beck?

Hmm?

Never mentioned.

No shit, Sherlock. If so many people said the Earth was a 5 dimensional shape only seen as a sphere as many times as all these assholes claimed there is a liberal bias in non hard-rightwing media, 2 to 1 people would believe it to. Just because the incompetent masses believe the bullshit people are spewing doesn't mean it is a fact.

It's called group think, look into it.

How bout any station Rush is on? Or Glenn "I a non-Republican Conservative Prick" Beck?

Hmm?

Never mentioned.

Actually, if you follow the links to the Rasmussen summary, you'll find that a conservative bias was perceived on Fox -- but not in such large numbers as the liberal biases on other stations.

It is nice to see how quickly a majority opinion can be dismissed, if you don't agree with it...

How bout any station Rush is on?
Agreed. Rush is a shitty band, and those stations are obviously biased towards shitty music.

Actually, if you follow the links to the Rasmussen summary, you'll find that a conservative bias was perceived on Fox -- but not in such large numbers as the liberal biases on other stations.

It is nice to see how quickly a majority opinion can be dismissed, if you don't agree with it...

perception is a funny thing. But when bias is called it all in the air for mass stupidity.

Actually, if you follow the links to the Rasmussen summary, you'll find that a conservative bias was perceived on Fox -- but not in such large numbers as the liberal biases on other stations.

It is nice to see how quickly a majority opinion can be dismissed, if you don't agree with it...
Not surprisingly, there are huge partisan and ideological differences in the data. For example, among self-identified liberals, all of the media outlets are believed to have some net bias in favor of conservatives. However, 50% of liberals say that NPR is unbiased. Forty-three percent (43%) say the same about CNN. As for the major television networks, 49% of liberals believe they have a conservative bias. Just 10% of liberals see a liberal bias at ABC, CBS, and NBC.

Conservatives throughout the nation see things entirely differently. Sixty-two percent (62%) see a liberal bias at the major broadcast networks and 55% say the same about CNN. Forty-five percent (45%) of conservatives see Fox as unbiased and the rest are evenly divided. Eighteen percent (18%) of conservatives see Fox News as having a liberal bias while 21% say the opposite.

Opinion dismissed.

Everyone remember to listen to the hypnotoad conservatives - reality has a liberal bias.

A business is bending the truth to make money? :eek:

In the US at least, news organizations have completely devolved into entertainment outlets.

Hence, the news of Paris Hilton, etc.

Pick one. It has bias one way or the other, depending on its target audience.

Not one US news organization has any credibility as a non-biased news source.

Opinion dismissed.

Everyone remember to listen to the hypnotoad conservatives - reality has a liberal bias.

Who are the 18% who see FN as liberal biased? I wanna meet them.

Them, and the liberals who think everything is conservative biased save NPR.


How stupid are people?

I'd say that the media in general are liberal "biased", because the reason for their existence - no matter how it is distorted by some - is to provide information. And the liberals highly value the access to unpolluted information.

Actually, if you follow the links to the Rasmussen summary, you'll find that a conservative bias was perceived on Fox -- but not in such large numbers as the liberal biases on other stations.

It is nice to see how quickly a majority opinion can be dismissed, if you don't agree with it...

The key word there is "opinion," and you're describing an opinion that's been carefully grown over the last thirty years. Frankly, I'm surprised the percentage isn't larger, given how consistently the right-wing has been whining about this so-called bias.

I'd be willing to bet that if you asked said respondents to point out a single case of liberal bias on those other stations, they wouldn't be able to do it. They perceive a bias because they've been told there is one, not because they've actually experienced it themselves.

It is nice to see how quickly a majority opinion can be dismissed, if you don't agree with it...

here's the thing - we are talking about a matter that can be empirically looked at. what a whole bunch of people believe doesn't matter at fucking all, except from a "how do we use, change, or otherwise deal with the unfounded beliefs of so many people?" angle. the fact of the matter is that the beliefs in question are objectively wrong on any reasonable standard of measurement.

Who are the 18% who see FN as liberal biased? I wanna meet them.

Them, and the liberals who think everything is conservative biased save NPR.


How stupid are people?

What I find fascinating are the liberals who think that NPR is conservative.

Some aren't happy, unless it's Air America, or Pacifica Radio Network.

What I find fascinating are the liberals who think that NPR is conservative.

Some aren't happy, unless it's Air America, or Pacifica Radio Network.

Crazies abound on both sides, it has been demonstrated.

The thing about the media, is the stories are reported by people, and people are biased. How can you expect reporters not to have a slant or non-bias in their line of work?

Well they are biased.

Their bias is making money.

So if they have liberal bias does that mean more people are liberal?

Is that what's annoying you Myrm?

here's the thing - we are talking about a matter that can be empirically looked at. what a whole bunch of people believe doesn't matter at fucking all, except from a "how do we use, change, or otherwise deal with the unfounded beliefs of so many people?" angle. the fact of the matter is that the beliefs in question are objectively wrong on any reasonable standard of measurement.

Free Soviets invents the "Political Bias Uncertainty Principle"


"let's say you have a cat in a box... is the cat a Leftie or a Rightie? Well, you don't know, because the cat exists in a wave superposition state of Left Cat/Right Cat...."

In the US at least, news organizations have completely devolved into entertainment outlets.

Hence, the news of Paris Hilton, etc.

Pick one. It has bias one way or the other, depending on its target audience.

Not one US news organization has any credibility as a non-biased news source.

And Remote Observer wins the day with his absolutely correct statement!

To put it more specifically, the bias isn't "liberal or conservative" in the delightfully stupid sense Americans mean them in. It's "corporate or religious extremism." Most are biased towards corporate, like ABC, NBC, CNN, and the like, while Fox News and the various radio stations that carry people like Rush Limbaugh are religious extremist.

What I find fascinating are the liberals who think that NPR is conservative.

given that it has consistently favored republicans as sources and as guests through both complete democratic control in dc and complete republican control, this perception may not be entirely off.

Well, a while back Congress tried to return the "fairness doctrine" that was removed when the Republicans controlled the government. A simple law that said both sides must be represented. And who was against it? Rush, Sean, and the rest of those that are nonbiased. And who refused to vote for it? The same Republicans that took it out in the first place.

Now if there were a "liberal bias" why would the conservatives be worried about a requirement to show both sides of an issue? Could it be there's actually a "conservative bias" they are trying to protect?

What I find fascinating are the liberals who think that NPR is conservative.

Some aren't happy, unless it's Air America, or Pacifica Radio Network.
Good job muddling up the point. What about the conservatives who saw FOX News as liberal? I guess they don't listen to anything but Rush Limbaugh and only read Ann Coulter so that they can escape so much liberalism around them.

I wish it had shown the number of conservatives who think NPR is a bastion of liberalism. I would bet it is at around the same levels as CNN.

Ideally, news should be news. Simple and unbiased.
But everyone should realize that the world is not perfect and, therefore, everything is biased. Even if they mean to or not, all news reports are going to be biased. Does that mean that we should just ignore the media because of it? Of course not.
I think that the bias is probably one of the most important things in media to pay attention to! My opinions are biased, your opinions are biased, and the world's opinions are biased, and paying attention to a variety of news sources, "liberal" and "conservative" alike, helps you to make informed descisions about what your positions are and prepare yourself to be able to defend your positions in the real world.
Do not ignore a news source just because it has a label. After all, building a fortress of either Ann Coultier or Michael Moore media around you is just reinforcing your ignorance of the real world, after all and is a crime to which people of both sides of the political spectrum are equally guilty.

Good job muddling up the point. What about the conservatives who saw FOX News as liberal? I guess they don't listen to anything but Rush Limbaugh and only read Ann Coulter so that they can escape so much liberalism around them.


It's not muddling the point. There are conservatives who think Fox is liberal. There are even some who think Rush is liberal.

I wish it had shown the number of conservatives who think NPR is a bastion of liberalism. I would bet it is at around the same levels as CNN.

Most people with a functioning brain know that NPR is liberal. They even admit it.

It's not muddling the point. There are conservatives who think Fox is liberal. There are even some who think Rush is liberal.



Most people with a functioning brain know that NPR is liberal. They even admit it.
Okay, look. American liberals are not liberal in any sense of the word other than their own definition. They are, at most, centre-right on a real world political scale. American politics is one small subset of the right wing of the whole world. It's pathetic, stupid, and mind-bogglingly nuts.

Most people with a functioning brain know that NPR is liberal. They even admit it.
Too bad this report came out with NPR as the most unbiased :rolleyes:
(FOX was only behind it on the technicality that so many conservatives think it is actually fair and balanced thanks to its most popular show: The O'Hypnotoad Factor)
Thanks for proving the point.

Though they didn't mention enough on the results of NPR to get a feel for where it actually should be placed.

Actually, if you follow the links to the Rasmussen summary, you'll find that a conservative bias was perceived on Fox -- but not in such large numbers as the liberal biases on other stations.

It is nice to see how quickly a majority opinion can be dismissed, if you don't agree with it...I am not dismissing any opinion.. specially majority opinions.

My opinion is that most people think the American media is conservative and biased to the right.

all of a sudden You are on the small minority.

I am not dismissing any opinion.. specially majority opinions.

My opinion is that most people think the American media is conservative and biased to the right.

all of a sudden You are on the small minority.

Not among Americans...

Not among Americans...I said most people

not most US people..

some are taking only US opinions into consideration.. I want to know all opinions form all sides.

Not among Americans...

says you - how dare you disregard the opinions of those that say otherwise!?

Makes you wonder if there really is a bias, or if people just think there is.

Okay, look. American liberals are not liberal in any sense of the word other than their own definition. They are, at most, centre-right on a real world political scale. American politics is one small subset of the right wing of the whole world. It's pathetic, stupid, and mind-bogglingly nuts.
But you know what? It's the subset of politics that we, in the United States, have to deal with. That makes it the most important subset to us.

Makes you wonder if there really is a bias, or if people just think there is.

Nowadays, if the network isn't kissing a particular party's ass, they say it's biased against that party.

But you know what? It's the subset of politics that we, in the United States, have to deal with. That makes it the most important subset to us.
You don't have to deal with it at all. You could try changing, as I have. Change your viewpoint. Fuck, you've been on here longer than I have by at least a year(taking into account my old PIcaRDMPCia account.) You ought to have opened your mind to something here by now, Myrmi. I know you're not stupid. You're horribly biased in many respects, but you're not stupid.

So open your mind. Accept different viewpoints. Learn! If more Americans would just do so, we'd be a lot better off.

Nowadays, if the network isn't kissing a particular party's ass, they say it's biased against that party.

actually, it would help if they didn't just act as stenographers while the republicans spew known falsehoods.

People can only have "liberal media" drummed into their heads so long before they start to pick things out that they think are "liberal."

Good journalism has to use lots of verbal hedges in order to maintain strict objectivity, and a lot of people mistake this unfamiliar language for "liberalism," for some reason.

At the end of the day, journalism's failure to openly advocate conservative ideology is probably what makes it seem "liberal" to a lot of people.

At any rate, lots of stupid Americans also think jesus lives in the sky and that "ain't no ape my grandpa!"

You know, I really wonder why it is that people take opinion surveys to prove anything.

opinions != facts

Of course the media is biased (mostly to the right in america), anyone who says the media isn't biased has their head firmly in the sand.

bias is all on perspective. anyone know what unabiased is if they saw it? it's all based on opinion.

if you were to say something is biased, shouldn't you be able to hold it up to something unbiased and compare to show that, in fact, it is biased. there's no such thing.

quit crying about fox news

bias is all on perspective. anyone know what unabiased is if they saw it? it's all based on opinion.

if you were to say something is biased, shouldn't you be able to hold it up to something unbiased and compare to show that, in fact, it is biased. there's no such thing.

quit crying about fox news
It was a survey on attitudes. I think the recent talk about resurrecting the "Fairness Doctrine" provoked some interest in how people view the media. I couldn't find the more apropos attitudes on talk radio, which is where I think the "Fairness Doctrine" would most likely be applied.

If you look at another survey (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/favorables/journalist_favorables) on favorable ratings, two things stick out.
First, how in the hell can Katie Couric get a 48 percent favorable rating and
Second how in the hell is Jon Stewart qualified to be a journalist?

bias is all on perspective. anyone know what unabiased is if they saw it? it's all based on opinion.

if you were to say something is biased, shouldn't you be able to hold it up to something unbiased and compare to show that, in fact, it is biased. there's no such thing.

quit crying about fox news

What about things that are based on fact, not opinion? How are they biased?

What about things that are based on fact, not opinion? How are they biased?

Selection bias - the bias of choosing which facts to present, and which to exclude, and when, and why.

Second how in the hell is Jon Stewart qualified to be a journalist?
The same way O'Reilly, Colmes, Hannity, Limbaugh, Hume, and Coulter are.
Hell, everyone is a damned journalist if Coulter qualifies.

Selection bias - the bias of choosing which facts to present, and which to exclude, and when, and why.

I'm learnding. :)

Any journalist/news source will have a bias. Some are stronger than others, but it's still there. The way that it swings will be to please the people and make more money, it's a reflection. Based on this I highly doubt that the USA's media has a left-winged bias. Generally half of the media will be to the left of the leading elected party (in a democracy) and half will be to the right. Think about what you read, try and find a decent news source and you'll be fine.

The same way O'Reilly, Colmes, Hannity, Limbaugh, Hume, and Coulter are.
Hell, everyone is a damned journalist if Coulter qualifies.

They didn't distinguish between 'personalities' and 'journalists' at all. At least Dan Rather didn't make the list...

Forty percent (40%) of Americans believe the Times has a bias in favor of liberals. Just 11% believe it has a conservative bias while 20% believe it reports news without bias.What about the other 29%?

Seriously, we expect some minor distortion due to rounding, and polls rarely report the usually small percentage that says "don't know" or "no opinion"....

... but 29%?

Someone isn't telling me something.

The simple response is that we know the media is liberal because David Brooks, George Will, William Safire, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Norman Podheretz, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Brit Hume, Sean Hannity, Mona Charen, Michelle Malkin, Brent Bozell, Larry Elder, Phyllis Schlafly, William Bennett, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Tony Blankley, Pat Buchanan, Andrew Sullivan, and Jonah Goldberg have made careers over the last 30 years pointing it out to us.

I do so love irony. Must be my liberalism.

What about the other 29%?

Seriously, we expect some minor distortion due to rounding, and polls rarely report the usually small percentage that says "don't know" or "no opinion"....

... but 29%?

Someone isn't telling me something.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/new_york_times_washington_post_and_local_newspapers_seen_as_having_liberal_bias

The poll results are on the left. 28% said "Not Sure."

Every human being on this planet (and probably every single other thinking being in the universe) is biased. Good journalists do their damndest to keep their bias out of the story, and presenting all the sides. Being human, they don't always succeed. That's how it works. bad journalists (read Faux news and some extreme left wing rags) don't bother.

Two thirds of Americans are gullible to believe whatever they're told.

LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
LIBERAL MEDIA!
[etc.]



Wow, that was on the first reply. A record, I think.

Wow, that was on the first reply. A record, I think.

I'm a big fan of pointing out the glaringly obvious to the blindingly oblivious.

They didn't distinguish between 'personalities' and 'journalists' at all. At least Dan Rather didn't make the list...

Yes, because as we all know a journalist who has been working in journalism for fifty years can't possibly make such a list due to one minor mistake. :rolleyes:

Opinion dismissed.

Everyone remember to listen to the hypnotoad conservatives - reality has a liberal bias.

ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNO-TOAD (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4244748494044269973&q=The+Hypno-Toad&total=68&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3).


Seriously, though, isn't the perception of bias basically going to be a personal assessment? Have we come to the point where the news cannot be delivered without opinions attached not only by those consuming the news, but by those dispensing it as well?

Also, how is there any objective way to "measure" bias? If A has a perception that is overwhelmingly in the minority, isn't A going to believe that the majority of everything A looks at or hears is biased against A's point of view? And if you're in the majority, aren't you going to look at the complaints of A and think he's off his nut, and that there's no bias at all?

Therefore, isn't it impossible to prove bias of any kind? If a 22-minute (+commercials = 30 minutes) national newscast presents, say, six stories, and has to make sure it covers the most important issues of the day, aren't some days going to focus on things and/or people that are perceived one way and other days focus on things and people that are perceived the other?

That being the case (biased if you do, biased if you don't), doesn't it make sense that a commercial newscast is going to do whatever it can to make its network (and parent corporation) money? Isn't profit the lowest common denominator, so let's draw viewers and advertisers?

This whole debate is completely pointless if all it leads to is people looking for someone to blame whenever something unpleasant happens and gets reported on the news.

Example: Bill Clinton, who much of the Conservative side of the media can't seem to stop blaming for everything, was giving a speech at the 2006 Aspen Institute, when he began to talk about some of the *gasp* GOOD things that G. W. Bush has done for the country. Clinton talked about how Bush, over the objections of his then-majority Congress, adjusted the provisions for international food aid. Farm lobbyists and farm-state congresscritters had demanded that all food be grown in the US and sent by US ships. Bush decided it would be far more economical to have farms and shipping be provided as close to the region needing aid as possible, so long as it was all paid for by US dollars, thus saving taxpayers money in aid payments that would have gone to shipping and storage costs.

I don't recall any Conservative media outlet ever bringing that up, or anything like it, and neither did and liberal outlet.

Folks, the more divided we are, the easier we are to be led to whatever conclusion the various factions' leaders wish to have us believe. Reject the notion of bias. Regurgitate less. Read more. Listen more.

ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD.


Seriously, though, isn't the perception of bias basically going to be a personal assessment? Have we come to the point where the news cannot be delivered without opinions attached not only by those consuming the news, but by those dispensing it as well?

Also, how is there any objective way to "measure" bias? If A has a perception that is overwhelmingly in the minority, isn't A going to believe that the majority of everything A looks at or hears is biased against A's point of view? And if you're in the majority, aren't you going to look at the complaints of A and think he's off his nut, and that there's no bias at all?

Therefore, isn't it impossible to prove bias of any kind? If a 22-minute (+commercials = 30 minutes) national newscast presents, say, six stories, and has to make sure it covers the most important issues of the day, aren't some days going to focus on things and/or people that are perceived one way and other days focus on things and people that are perceived the other?

That being the case (biased if you do, biased if you don't), doesn't it make sense that a commercial newscast is going to do whatever it can to make its network (and parent corporation) money? Isn't profit the lowest common denominator, so let's draw viewers and advertisers?

This whole debate is completely pointless if all it leads to is people looking for someone to blame whenever something unpleasant happens and gets reported on the news.

Example: Bill Clinton, who much of the Conservative side of the media can't seem to stop blaming for everything, was giving a speech at the 2006 Aspen Institute, when he began to talk about some of the *gasp* GOOD things that G. W. Bush has done for the country. Clinton talked about how Bush, over the objections of his then-majority Congress, adjusted the provisions for international food aid. Farm lobbyists and farm-state congresscritters had demanded that all food be grown in the US and sent by US ships. Bush decided it would be far more economical to have farms and shipping be provided as close to the region needing aid as possible, so long as it was all paid for by US dollars, thus saving taxpayers money in aid payments that would have gone to shipping and storage costs.

I don't recall any Conservative media outlet ever bringing that up, or anything like it, and neither did and liberal outlet.

Folks, the more divided we are, the easier we are to be led to whatever conclusion the various factions' leaders wish to have us believe. Reject the notion of bias. Regurgitate less. Read more. Listen more.
I do remember the story, but not the network that covered it. The reason I do remember it was because the counterpoint was Hillary saying the GWB reminded her of the "What Me Worry" kid from Mad Magazine.

I do remember the story, but not the network that covered it. The reason I do remember it was because the counterpoint was Hillary saying the GWB reminded her of the "What Me Worry" kid from Mad Magazine.

You read that post, and all you have to say is to comment on that story? Come on, Myrmi, open your eyes to the real point of what he's saying! Open your mind for just a moment and listen! Don't be so uptight about your biases and keeping them! Learn, damn it!

I do remember the story, but not the network that covered it. The reason I do remember it was because the counterpoint was Hillary saying the GWB reminded her of the "What Me Worry" kid from Mad Magazine.

I fail to see how that's a counterpoint. Hillary's running for office and can't afford to talk nice about the guy she wants to replace. Bill is still beling blamed by Bush's party (let's face it, the RNC and the DNC are chock full of failed politicians with nasty grudges) and their mouthpieces for just about everything.

*slaps big book on thread*

http://a1.vox.com/6a00c2251c188ef21900c22525b2f98e1d-500pi

If you get a chance, it's a worthy read for a signficantly less jingoistic approach to media bias.

I fail to see how that's a counterpoint. Hillary's running for office and can't afford to talk nice about the guy she wants to replace. Bill is still beling blamed by Bush's party (let's face it, the RNC and the DNC are chock full of failed politicians with nasty grudges) and their mouthpieces for just about everything.
It was made the story. Bill says something nice about Bush, Hillary says something mean...Otherwise, it's just another speech that Clinton was overpaid to give.

You read that post, and all you have to say is to comment on that story? Come on, Myrmi, open your eyes to the real point of what he's saying! Open your mind for just a moment and listen! Don't be so uptight about your biases and keeping them! Learn, damn it!
Sorry, the rest was just wrong. There are plenty of ways to measure bias -- there's the stories that are selected, the stories that are omitted, the way points of view are presented in a story, i.e. right-wing instead of conservative. Plenty of ways ... There was a study a few years back that did just that. It determined key words and phrases and counted them.

But this thread isn't about proving bias, only how the public perceives it to be.

I think you might be in the minority. Certainly a large number of Americans consider the media to be biased, either toward the left or right.

From where, exactly, do they find out that the media is biased? Does the biased media tell them? Well, it obviously can't be trusted. It's biased.

Also, how is there any objective way to "measure" bias?

well, you could count the amount of time given to one side over another, you could examine the framing of stories, you could look at who is allowed to get away with rampant hypocrisy and flat out lies and admissions of felonies and who is hounded over made-up bullshit or non-issues, etc. these are all objective, empirically discoverable ways we can and do measure bias.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/new_york_times_washington_post_and_local_newspapers_seen_as_having_liberal_bias

The poll results are on the left. 28% said "Not Sure."Indeed.

And don't we think that's rather significant in itself?

So all it's about is how much time you give each side and how each side is shown? So I have one news report on a subject, and it's well-crafted, well-researched, well-documented and clearly professional. It's 5 minutes long. I now have to find 5 minutes of the same from the other side -- if I can. And what of still other sides? What if all the other side(s) have is jingoistic opinion pieces instead of actual reporting?

It isn't as simple as time allotted.

But this thread isn't about proving bias, only how the public perceives it to be.

Really? Because I distinctively recall the original post using this study to prove that the media has a liberal bias.

Come on, Myrmi....work with me here.

Second how in the hell is Jon Stewart qualified to be a journalist?
Well, he does have a degree and he does report the news (even if he does so in a funny manner).

How does Ann Coulter qualify as a journalist? She thinks that Canada fought in Vietnam, for fuck's sake.

Sorry, the rest was just wrong. There are plenty of ways to measure bias -- there's the stories that are selected, the stories that are omitted, the way points of view are presented in a story, i.e. right-wing instead of conservative. Plenty of ways ... There was a study a few years back that did just that. It determined key words and phrases and counted them.
You mean like the study they did in the run up to the 2000 election where they compared the phrasing used to describe Bush and Gore on CNN and found that Bush was referred to more frequently in a positive manner?

But yeah, of course CNN is liberally biased...

Really? Because I distinctively recall the original post using this study to prove that the media has a liberal bias.

Come on, Myrmi....work with me here.
Then you recollect wrong. Join the Scooter Libby failing memory club. Go directly to jail and do not collect $200.

I distinctly remember saying that proof of bias was a completely different matter; the Rasmussen study was only about perception.

In fact, I went back and re-read my post and it said exactly that.

You need to give up on trying to win me over to the dark side. Been there, done that and I'll never be liberal again. Now, if those guys from the McGovern campaign hadn't stiffed me for the $10 they promised, it might be a different story...

You mean like the study they did in the run up to the 2000 election where they compared the phrasing used to describe Bush and Gore on CNN and found that Bush was referred to more frequently in a positive manner?

But yeah, of course CNN is liberally biased...
Yeah, kind of like that. You actually think that it is possible to refer to Gore in a favorable manner? At least back in 2000, Bush seemed like a personable guy. Maybe not the most eloquent, but certainly more like someone you'd like to have over for drinks.

At least back in 2000, Bush seemed like a personable guy. Maybe not the most eloquent, but certainly more like someone you'd like to have over for drinks.

according to the media...

Yeah, kind of like that. You actually think that it is possible to refer to Gore in a favorable manner? At least back in 2000, Bush seemed like a personable guy. Maybe not the most eloquent, but certainly more like someone you'd like to have over for drinks.

Sure--all you'd have to do to refer to Gore in a positive manner is be accurate. It's really not that fucking difficult.

Sure--all you'd have to do to refer to Gore in a positive manner is be accurate. It's really not that fucking difficult.

but lying is much more fun and pleasing to the royalty of the dc cocktail circuit

Yeah, kind of like that. You actually think that it is possible to refer to Gore in a favorable manner? At least back in 2000, Bush seemed like a personable guy. Maybe not the most eloquent, but certainly more like someone you'd like to have over for drinks.

So? The question was who would be the best president, not who you want to have drinks with. What Bush seemed like as a drinking buddy is irrevelant, there were many postive things to say about Gore in 2000. Also, some positive things to say about Bush.

So? The question was who would be the best president, not who you want to have drinks with. What Bush seemed like as a drinking buddy is irrevelant, there were many postive things to say about Gore in 2000. Also, some positive things to say about Bush.
No, the question was about bias...and how CNN outfavorabled Gore with nice comments about Bush in 2000. There just aren't that many nice things to say about Gore and there weren't then. Even the people of Tennessee knew that they didn't mind seeing Al in Congress, but couldn't stand the idea of having him inhabit the White House.

The media's biased, in the sense that TV and Radio news is biased. So's the internet too, come to think of it...

I come from one particular country that-

... Enough said, or my head'll roll... (not literally of course)

So? The question was who would be the best president, not who you want to have drinks with. What Bush seemed like as a drinking buddy is irrevelant, there were many postive things to say about Gore in 2000. Also, some positive things to say about Bush.
Actually the fact that Bush seemed like a good drinking buddy is very relevant. How many of your drinking buddies would you look at and say "He would make a good president.."

No, the question was about bias...and how CNN outfavorabled Gore with nice comments about Bush in 2000. There just aren't that many nice things to say about Gore and there weren't then. Even the people of Tennessee knew that they didn't mind seeing Al in Congress, but couldn't stand the idea of having him inhabit the White House.
Of course ppl preferred Bush to Al Gore being in the Whitehouse.
I mean, that's why more people voted for Bush than Gore in 2000, right?

Reality to Myr
Reality to Myr
Are you receiving us, Myr?
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hello?

Actually the fact that Bush seemed like a good drinking buddy is very relevant. How many of your drinking buddies would you look at and say "He would make a good president.."

Most of them.

Actually the fact that Bush seemed like a good drinking buddy is very relevant. How many of your drinking buddies would you look at and say "He would make a good president.."

The real question is how many of Bush's coke, er, drinking buddies thought that.

Most of them.
I'm sure everyone else sees that this makes the point for me.

No, the question was about bias...and how CNN outfavorabled Gore with nice comments about Bush in 2000. There just aren't that many nice things to say about Gore and there weren't then. Even the people of Tennessee knew that they didn't mind seeing Al in Congress, but couldn't stand the idea of having him inhabit the White House.

Even if you're right, that there just weren't that many "nice" things to say about Gore in 2000 (and you aren't), the fact that Gore still outpolled Bush nationwide in spite of the negative press coverage ought to tell you something about how ridiculous your claim is.

I think you might be in the minority. Certainly a large number of Americans consider the media to be biased, either toward the left or right. Actual proof is another thing, this is just how the viewers perceive the content....



http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2007/20070717144258.aspx

Since when has a public poll become a scholarly measure of determining something like that?

Even if you're right, that there just weren't that many "nice" things to say about Gore in 2000 (and you aren't), the fact that Gore still outpolled Bush nationwide in spite of the negative press coverage ought to tell you something about how ridiculous your claim is.
It still has to burn his butt that his home state wouldn't give him a win in the electoral college. Forget about Florida, all Gore had to do was win his home state. George McGovern was the last candidate that I remember losing his home state.

It still has to burn his butt that his home state wouldn't give him a win in the electoral college. Forget about Florida, all Gore had to do was win his home state. George McGovern was the last candidate that I remember losing his home state.
It probably does, but I take heart that Al Gore is a better man than the people from Tennessee who refused to vote for him because they believed Bush was a nicer guy to hang around with and so was better qualified to run the country.

It probably does, but I take heart that Al Gore is a better man than the people from Tennessee who refused to vote for him because they believed Bush was a nicer guy to hang around with and so was better qualified to run the country.

Yeah, considering that he cleared all that land with a mule and an axe.

Yeah, considering that he cleared all that land with a mule and an axe.
Yep, I think Nazz forgets how Gore liked to embellish the truth -- what the heck, he just liked to lie.

Yep, I think Nazz forgets how Gore liked to embellish the truth -- what the heck, he just liked to lie.

funny story about that - turns out that pretty much all of those 'lies' were in fact not accurate quotes, or were taken dramatically out of context, or were flat out made up by the liberal media. do try to keep up.

Here's a good example of bias:

Why is it that this story got a lot of press:

Associated Press Published: Friday, November 24, 2006 BAGHDAD -- Shiite militiamen grabbed six Sunnis as they left Friday worship services, doused them with kerosene and burned them alive near Iraqi soldiers who did not intervene, police Capt. Jamil Hussein said. The savage revenge attack for Thursday's slaying of 215 people in the Shiite Sadr City slum occurred as members of the Mahdi Army militia burned four mosques, and several homes while killing an unknown number of Sunni residents in the once-mixed Hurriyah neighbourhood of Baghdad. Gunmen loyal to radical anti-American Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr began taking over the neighbourhood this summer and most of its Sunni residents already had fled.

and later was debunked
http://mediamythbusters.com/index.php?title=Captain_Jamil_Hussein#Conflicting_reports

but AP didn't really do anything at all - and major mainstream media RAN with this story ad infinitum.

And this story gets no press?

Speaking through an American interpreter, Lieutenant David Wallach who is a native Arabic speaker, the Iraqi official related how al Qaeda united these gangs who then became absorbed into “al Qaeda.” They recruited boys born during the years 1991, 92 and 93 who were each given weapons, including pistols, a bicycle and a phone (with phone cards paid) and a salary of $100 per month, all courtesy of al Qaeda. These boys were used for kidnapping, torturing and murdering people.

At first, he said, they would only target Shia, but over time the new al Qaeda directed attacks against Sunni, and then anyone who thought differently. The official reported that on a couple of occasions in Baqubah, al Qaeda invited to lunch families they wanted to convert to their way of thinking. In each instance, the family had a boy, he said, who was about 11-years-old. As LT David Wallach interpreted the man’s words, I saw Wallach go blank and silent. He stopped interpreting for a moment. I asked Wallach, “What did he say?” Wallach said that at these luncheons, the families were sat down to eat. And then their boy was brought in with his mouth stuffed. The boy had been baked. Al Qaeda served the boy to his family.

http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/baqubah-update-05-july-2007.htm