WHY AREN'T THERE MORE LIBERALS ON TV?

Back to Dan.

Dan speaks at fundraisers for the Democrat party, and is widely known as an attack dog on Republicans, and an old softy when it comes to the hapless foibles of his own party.

All the extraneous junk that attempts to dodge this fact shows your unwillingness to face the facts about dear ole Dan. He is a rabid liberal, who uses his bully pulpit to downgrade Republicans and protect Democrats.

Are you capable of speaking to this issue? (Hint: The issue at point is Dan Rather, an example of liberal news anchors on the telly.)

But does Rather report the news with the same rapid attack dog liberal bent? I certainly don't see it. Unless tearing up after reporting the day of 9/ll is liberal. I'd like to see some examples of Rather's rapid dog attacks on the conservatives.

tresspass, you know that news is so stale now you are unlikely to still find archives to support how much exposure there was for those stories on TV. All I remember is both stories getting coverage. I actually don't get the significance of either story getting more or less coverage -- that's the station/channel editor's call. The late night comics are using news in a comedic/satirical way and are either conservatives or liberals on TV. What political persuasion do you suppose Leno is, or Maher, or Stewart or Letterman? And they don't write for newspapers (save Maher who has had columns in the paper).

The title of the discussion is clear -- this isn't question why there aren't more liberals in the media but on television inparticular. I don't see all that much change other than the conservatives were relegated mostly to radio (was Rush too expensive for FOX?) The question is really subjective as anyone can interpret it in many ways.

1. They're haven't been enough liberals all along.

2. Ther're aren't enough liberals since FOX.

3. Liberals don't propagandize with the same fervor.

4. The media has perceived that the country is half conservative so
have tried to proportion their commentators to please that
constituency.

I don't see anyone proving that the network anchormen are blatantly pandering to the left leaving absolutely no voice for the right by omission or by some kind of manipulative way of scripting the news.

First, let me say I sincerely appreciate you looking at this. I've taken off my partisan garment, but I am keeping it handy...

I am not prosecuting now, and I hope you do not feel you must defend.

I typed in "Rather...liberal...bias...excerpt." The 35 pages lit up my computer. This is not a point, but an observation. I'm sure there were plenty of agenda-bound links, but these links can be sued for defamation if they quote him incorrectly.

The one I refer to has an anti-Dan motive, but they must stand by the quotes attributed to him.

Look here.

This link directly evaluates how Dan handled Clinton's Chinagate. I'm sure if you move through the link, they will look at many others. The major charge is Dan attacks GOP members and softpedals for Democrats.

In answer to your question, yes, Rather does show his bias on-air. He is famous for it. Again, I appreciate you looking at what I'm speaking of.

All that reporting on "Chinagate" which proved to be no "Gate" at all but a lot of suspicion over what was going on for many years before Clinton is too obviously right wing propaganda. I see they bold printed phrases to prove their theory but there's no comparison to how the story was reported by others who may have used those same qualifying phrases. Newscast writers do this all the time whether the anchorman is liberal or conservative.
He might be "famous" for what you perceive as a way of reporting that is a spin of the real facts but he's only famous for it if you want to believe it.

All this just proved one thing -- campaign finance reform is imperative because it can be abused and abused by all politicians, whether or not no smoking gun was found that make any connection to secrets being leaked to the Chinese to contributions. The contributions were returned.

BTW, why don't these big conglomorate corporations hire politically conservative anchormen? Are they lousy in bed or something?

Well, I think we've exhausted our opinions on the subject.

I wasn't trying to cause a change in your opinion, but did want you to see how I arrived at mine.

I thank you for looking at the link and responding to the content.

Rather is a mixed bag, in my opinion; sometimes biased, sometimes laudably balanced. Perhaps that is the best one can hope for.


I just checked CNN.com, ABCnews.com, and CBSnews.com and all have archives that go back at least to 2000. Likewise I checked major newspapers and those I checked go back at least to 1996. So the archives exist, and every one I searched had no reference to the event. If you wanted to check for yourself, the information is available. (I would not have extended the challenge were that not the case.)


Yes, I understand that you don't see this the way I and others do.


True, but they are not media personalities as we have been using the term in this discussion, and they choose their stories for the humorous potential, not the newsworthiness.


This is yet another example of your tendency to twist and exagerate the other point of view until it becomes ridiculous, then attack that ridiculous statement as if it was the other point of view. I and others have attempted to define what we consider bias in the media to be. None of those attempts is even remotely similar to the position you pretend we have taken. If you can't or don't want to argue the position I and others have taken, that's fine, but that straw man assembly line of yours is getting old. :wink:

You may not be advocating that the liberal anchorman are blatantly twisting the news to suit their political profile but others are not so moderate about it.

The part of that statement to which I object is "leaving absolutely no voice for the right", but you are right that I should just argue my own position. This would of course, be easier if you didn't so often refer to what other conservatives say or do in your responses.

Boos for Bush Silenced at AMA?

When the band Alabama received the Award of Merit, the elder Bush's face appeared on screen. "I'm very proud to be part of tonight's tribute honoring one of the most highly successful bands country music has ever known," said the former president, but his image was met with a loud chorus of boos.

One source says Randy Owen, the lead singer for the band, was "pretty shaken" by the crowd's reaction.

The boos from the crowd, however, were not audible in the broadcast, leading some to believe that they were deleted by censors.

"To be honest, I can't tell you," a spokesman for ABC told The Scoop, who referred the question to a spokesman for the production company.

"I don't know and I can't tell you," said a spokesman for the production company, who referred questions back to ABC.

See, there's a damned big difference between bias...

...and censorship.

Pdiddle, I was just bringing that baby over here, anyway - good job - I'm sure this was some more of that liberal crap! (Dan must be behind it.)

Censorship would have been not allowing the booing to take place or not allowing it to be reported.

Not including it on the broadcast was just good taste. Any former President being booed in public (not a sitting pres) is poor taste, politics notwithstanding.

Even though I have a very low opinion of Clinton, I would think public booing of him was a discredit to the office, more than the man.

PDiddie - Editing out boos isn't censorship, it is intentional bias. It attempts to skew the impression of the viewer, painting events as they did not actually occur. Conversely, booing when someone is speaking can be tantamount to censorship, if it prevents the speaker from being heard.

When the crowd booed Hillary off the stage at the concert in Central Park after 9/11, they effectively censored her. When VH-1 edited out those boos and replaced them with crowd noise from another point in the concert, that was bias.

Preview Bush's State of the Union address here (best viewed with a high-speed connection):

State of the Union

(BIAS WARNING: if you would be offended by biting satire against the current administration then don't click...)

I have to disagree. The issue of whether the actions were disrespectful is of far less concern than that the event be portrayed as it actually occurred. Let's not forget that to some, speaking out against the government is considered "disrespectful", yet it is very clearly protected political speech.

Bush unmasked.

Clever and quite well edited. I do think the "we're evil" is a bit over the top, but then it is sarcasm. I give it 8 out of 10.

Personally, I've enjoyed a lot of the clever humor that lampoons GWB, even if I disagree with most of it. I voted for the man, and I am hopeful that this country will benefit from his leadership*, but--contrary to popular opinion--I don't worship the ground he walks on. (That position of honor is reserved for and shared by my wife and daughter.)

I get your take on the event. Had he been a sitting pres., I may agree. But I still think censorship would have been the squelching of the boos, or the refusal to report that it had occurred.
And the Music Awards isn't news, it's entertainment. The news was free to report it, which they did.
The disrespect doesn't bother me. The network must have thought it was bad taste, as reflected in their choice to edit it out.

But agree to disagree.

[quote="Lash GothThe network must have thought it was bad taste, as reflected in their choice to edit it out.[/quote]
I'm wondering whether you would have called it bias if Clinton had been the one involved. I know I would have, which makes me reconsider my take on VH-1 editing out the booing of Hillary. I do know that there was profanity involved in that case, so perhaps it was necessary. Heck, as Forrest Gump would say, "Maybe it's both happening at the same time" :wink:

I think the difference here is the political positions of the boo-ees.
Bush 1 was retired. Hillary was a candidate. As I said earlier, even though I really dislike Clinton, since he is a retired pres., I wouldn't like to hear booing at him, due to the office (and the fact he was not a sitting politician.)

Booing a sitting politico is different. It is news, and expression.