WHY AREN'T THERE MORE LIBERALS ON TV?

Well, Lash, Bob Jones is the only university representative of that small set. They don't go to Columbia, after all. Now if Dems all had to put in an appearance at South Cuba U, and if you hadn't said Bob Jones wasn't representative of anything, I wouldn't have mentioned it.

Tress

Counter point here. My take is different. Have you noticed how ALL members of the administration when responding to questions on policy or when making an announcement ALWAYS frame the sentence such as "The President believes..." or "What the President has said..."? Personal opinions and viewpoints are more rare than celibate medieval Popes. I've never seen quite the like of it, and it is clearly a briefed and trained PR strategy for pushing the President front and center at all times and promoting him as the forceful, decisive leader and minimizing any sense of discord on policy issues (waving hello to Mr. Rove here).

This is actually a wonderful example of how the modern soundbite press is so susceptible to being spoon-fed slogans and PR lines which folks in government want forwarded.

To whom would you have them attribute the administration's official positions? I do not think the media cares what the press secretary himself thinks. I don't recall Clinton's press secretary ever once saying, "The President's advisors on issue X have come up with the following position..." or "Let me tell you what I personally think about issue Y...". The only real difference I see between this administration and the previous one on this issue is the receptiveness of the press. Most were very receptive of Clinton's policies and positions, and are not receptive to Bush's.


Being "spoon-fed slogans and PR lines" to me suggests that the media are parroting what the administration says. Your example merely speaks to the issue of how the administration itself speaks. Clearly they want to influence people, that's not news.

I'm not trying to cast doubt on anyone's memory. However, surveys of a few schools in areas that are perhaps overwhelmingly liberal to begin with is spinning to the hilt. Try some colleges and universities in Texas or any of the blue states. I guess if they are also overwhelmingly liberal that the parents of the children in that state who have been voting conservative haven't much influence on their offspring they are probably paying part or all of the tuition in those colleges and universities. You say this appeared in an article and survey -- did I miss that you don't even remember the periodical?

I have the same nagging questions about Lash's statements,
Setanta.

One could go on for days quoting these little incidences that stick in one's craw and be countered with perceived biases on FOX, or indeed, some commentators on CNN. It's a fruitless passtime -- the job of proving all these biases is overwhelming. Not only that, it's based on one's personal sensitivity to the way something is said. You can prove they are liberal Democrats much easier than trying in any stretch of the imagination that they are recruiting new blood for the party. There, at best, insinuations on your part and not stealthy attempts at brainwashing. If one's cause is secure and there's a belief that's one's ideas about government are logically and rationally right, it's really way over the mark in sensitivity to express such fear about the influence of the other faction.

All this pushing and pulling at logic and rationale is making my head spin. The more one brags about how logic and rationale they are, the more incoherent they become.

Exatly where have I ignored your points, Lash? I'm having trouble with all the generalities and haven't found any points. List the points you've made so I can see if I missed any.

I admit to throwing in some diversion but they were meant more in flippant humor than seriously trying to derail the discussion. I guess humor is over your head?

A straight answer? You haven't asked any questions. You barge in with all the answers.

The question was why there aren't more liberals on TV which, in itself, is way too general in the first place. That anyone tries to make that question specific is funny. It doesn't say there aren't any liberals on TV but it may mean are too many conservatives. It's almost a baiting question. I have had trouble with -- is there a point to the question? What does it prove, if anything. Don't see any clear cut answers -- it's just awfully smoky in here.

tresspassers - while I can agree with some of what you said, the President's message is blasted over the airways and in print within minutes of the utterances. If it seems like Ari Fleischer's mispoken statements that the White House has managed to spin, those were far and inbetween with the White House spokespeople during Clinton. Ari isn't the most exciting spokesperson to ever mount that podium -- I feel he is dry and humorless with the charisma and personality of a porcupine. He also may have the character of Albert Sweitzer, but I don't see it. In don't see anything but a talking face. I guess that could be just me.

I also guess that Lash has never heard of Conservative Democrats.

Rfering back to Goldberg's book claiming liberal bias, Goldberg's critique is good when it deals with the triumph of entertainment values over information in television news. He writes well about how CBS ignores minorities because of the need for "attractive suburban people" (a.k.a. "white") to illustrate the stories reported by CBS. It's still shocking to read how blatantly journalists make decisions on choosing stories about white people over minorities because they are the preferred target audience for advertisers.
But Goldberg misses an important point: newsrooms are not liberal because they are biased. They appear to be liberal because the journalists today aren't the same as those who worked in journalism in the 1970s when Goldberg first became a reporter.
But over the late 70s and 80s, newsrooms changed. The arrival of the more educated reporters ("little snot-nose" was one of the more endearing and presentable epithets) meant that the age of the journalist as craftsperson was ending. The age of the "media professional" was beginning.Goldberg's lament for a simpler time is heartfelt. But his criticism feels thin and it sounds a lot like TV news itself: long on impressions and short on proof.

Does anyone have the nerve to discuss this content?

Micheal Kinsey and co. admit left leaning. And the NPR is liberal.
--------------------
Another overwhelming case of Dems shaping minds.....(Not that there should be a law against it.... I just wonder why it is so vehemently denied.)The Indiana University College Republicans
Press Release -- For immediate release
I.U. College Republicans Outraged Over Imbalance at PoliSci Department
At a time when partisan college course are in the news, the Indiana University College Republicans believe it is time to address an issue long ignored by the I.U. administration: the lack of balance at the I.U. Political Science Department.

For years, both the administration of Indiana University and the Political Science Department itself have ignored the problem of balance. This has led to bias, imbalance, and lost educational perspective at the Political Science Department. It has also led to abuse, as the Political Science Department has, in effect, become an organ of the local and state Democratic Party, with the administration's blessing, of course.

In October of 1996, I.U. President Myles Brand told The Indiana Daily Student that he only foresaw a favorable future (and favorable budget) if the Democrats took back the State House of Representatives and if Democrat Frank O'Bannon was elected Governor. In December, I.U. Chancellor Kenneth Gros-Louis told The Indiana Daily Student that "I am a great fan of (Bloomington Mayor John Fernandez, a Democrat) and have been for a number of years" (December 16, 1996). Gros-Louis wasn't just talk. According to Fernandez's off-year campaign finance report, Gros-Louis donated $700 in 1996.

It is little wonder that Democratic and liberal philosophies are flourishing at the I.U. Political Science Department. The Department is rife with professors who are active Democrats. Professor Tim Tilton, who helped organize the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee in 1981, was elected County Commissioner in 1988 and 1992. In 1996, he consulted with the Democratic State Committee on how to win county commissioner races. Professor Russell Hanson was appointed by the Democrats to represent them in a recount of a contested county council election in which Republicans won and took back the majority. In 1995, Professor Lawrence Hanks, also the dean of Afro-American Studies, attended a lecture by Ohio Treasurer Ken Blackwell (R), where he asked how Blackwell could be both Black and Republican. Finally, the public voting records show that there is not a single professor in the Department that votes Republican. No fewer than 15 professors regularly vote in Democratic primaries. (See below.)

There is not a single professor at the Department that regularly votes in Republican primaries.

The Indiana University College Republicans want balance at the Political Science Department. We ask that President Brand meet with us and our advisors. We also ask our state representatives, state senators, Congressmen, and our Governor to help end this situation and assist us in convincing the I.U. administration to add balance to the Political Science Department.

The education of Hoosier students shouldn't be one-sided or biased.

Enclosures

Voting Records of Indiana University Political Science Professors
PROFESSORS 96-95-94 92-91-90 88-87-86 84-83
Edward Carmines --- ? --- --- ? --- --- ? --- --- ? ---
Elinor Ostrom no primary voting record
Jack Bielasiak -DD D-- D-D D-
Norman Furniss DDD D-- DDR D-
Russell Hanson -D- D-- DDD D-
Iliya Harik D-- --- DDD D-
Jeffrey Hart -DD --- --- D-
Marjorie Hershey DDD D-D DDD D-
Francis Hoole --- --- DD- D-
Jeffrey Isaac DD- -D- D-- --
Gregory Kasza No primary voting record
Leroy Rieselbach -D- D-- D-D DD
William Thompson --- ? --- --- ? --- --- ? --- --- ? ---
Timothy Tilton DDD DDD DDD DD
Gerald Wright, Jr. --- --- --- -D
Patrick O'Meara registered but no record
Eugene McGregor (SPEA) DDD DDD D-- DD

ASSOCIATE PROFESSORS
Kenneth Bickers -RD --- --- --
Lawrence Hanks DD- --- --- --
Michael McGinnis --- ? --- --- ? --- --- ? --- --- ? ---
Karen Rasler --- ? --- --- ? --- --- ? --- --- ? ---
Jean Robinson -DD D-- --- --
Dina Spechler D-- --- --- --
Richard Stryker -D- -D- DDD D-
John Williams --- ? --- --- ? --- --- ? --- --- ? ---

Explanation: A question mark indicates that records could not be found. A hyphen indicates that the voter did not vote or was not registered. A D represents a vote in a Democratic primary. An R represents a vote in a Republican primary.

Source: The Monroe County Clerk's Office.

Contacts: Sean Frick, Chairman. (812) 336-8319
[email protected]

This information originally appeared in THE HOOSIER REVIEW, a publication of the I.U. College Republicans.
<http://www.indiana.edu/~iugop/hreview/hreview.html>.

- -30- -

Return to: Views From Abroad

From Lash's link:

"Kinsley sensibly believes that perfect objectivity is impossible, and that reporters' voting behavior doesn't automatically translate into blatant bias. As many times as conservatives can note the Freedom Forum survey that 89 percent of Washington reporters and editors voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, the argument never ends there. You can be greatly opinionated in private, and unbiased in print or on the air. Bias must be documented, not simply assumed."

IMO, if the media were so biased left, they certainly have been spectacularly unsuccessful of late in"shaping minds" (Lash's words).

OK, LW. The preceding crew are all libs. Hunt, Shields, Carlson and Donahue get a pass. They are commentators, who can spin all they like (and boy do they). But the others are known as reporters and newscasters. They are trusted to deliver the news, not construct it to their liking.

I think long ago, others discovered news reporters bias is a fact. It is common knowledge that 'journalists' are overwhelmingly Democrat/liberal. I can't imagine anyone here believing that party affiliation of reporters slants their take on an event or story.

Interesting choice of words on one of your posts: I barge in with answers. When you voice your view, is this also barging? What exactly is criteria for the 'barge'? Have you ever 'barged?'

About my sense of humor, and yours. You stated that maybe your sense of humor was over my head. I guess so. Thank God for you elitist intellectuals! THANK GOD for you. What would the rest of us do!!! (Or, LW, maybe I just don't think what you said is funny. I guess that could be an explanation, as well.)

Since trading personal cracks, while discussion is stagnant, is not a worthwhile use of my time, I'll take a powder and reclaim my lofty motives.

IMO, if the media were so biased left, they certainly have been spectacularly unsuccessful of late in"shaping minds" (Lash's words).


¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤

PDiddie-- You are mistaken. Those are not my words. Please use care when ascribing words to another. Lash Goth

You're mixing pundits and commentators with news journalists. Donahue has never claimed to be a journalists and is extremely liberal. apparently you couldn't tell a liberal unless they walked up and increased your taxes.

The actual broadcast news figures like brokaw who I doubt you watch but sporadically -- how do you get your TV tuner unfused from FOX? You are definitely an authority on whether they spin the news toward the right. I don't find they spin it as far right as many believe. If find Donahue's rival on FOX, Bill o'Reilley to be fair-minded and on target about many topics but still bent toward the right. Bill Maher had Bill on several "Politically Incorrect" shows and had some not-so-surprising agreements with him.

This mixing up of pundits with news anchormen when one knows what their political party is to be patently absurd.

On the other hand, the cable channels mix news up with editorializing so unless one is paying close attention, you can't tell the commentary from the news. FOX is very definitely doing this as an integral part of their format even with the brief announcement of real news breaks and CNN is not far behind.

I'm surprised Lehrer isn't on your list of news spin doctors as he works for PBS, partially finance by an organization the right wing would like to do away with. Or could this be misinterpreted as revenge?

Michael Kinsey is a essay writer, previously on Cross-Fire as the voice of the left. He's not a news reporter. This blurring of the line between the two is not advancing any understanding of the question.

Lash:

Then it is quite unclear whose words those are in your post of today, pg. 11, 9:44. Did you bold them or did the original author?

By disclaiming them as your words, do you also mean to disagree with them?

Very confusing. Please clarify.

Lash: your referenced article regarding liberal bias comes from a source hardly neutral in his own bias: www.MRC.org
L. Brent Bozell III

Brent Bozell, a zealot of impeccable right-wing pedigree, is the nephew of columnist William F. Buckley and the son of L. Brent Bozell, Jr., who assisted Barry Goldwater with the writing of Conscience of a Conservative.

A close associate of the late Terry Dolan, the closeted gay founder of the National Conservative Political Action Committee, Bozell served for several years as the Dolan organization's finance chairman and president. In 1991, he helped orchestrate a smear campaign directed at the opposition to Clarence Thomas's appointment to the Supreme Court; in 1992, he was the chief fund-raiser behind Pat Buchanan's unsuccessful bid for the Republican Presidential nomination.

The Media Research Center provides Bozell with a platform from which to bash the arts and popular culture. Recently (1996) Bozell has been part of the drive to eradicate PBS.

The garish portrayal of our culture by Bozell, such as the claim that the film version of Last Temptation of Christ showed Jesus "engaging in sex acts and committing adultery," are sometimes entertaining, but the accretion of drivel can be wearing.

Damn! First Professional Wrestling, now Bozell and Kinsey are just front men for ideolocic agendas. Where will it ever end?



timber

That's okay. I did not expect that everyone would. It is not a strong example, but it was one that popped out at me, so I thought I would share it. I wonder whether you can at least concede that one's bias can color how one describes something, even while everything said is factually accurate, which was my point.


Absolutely.

Let me try another example. You may or may not agree with me that it illustrates undeniable bias, though perhaps you will allow that it might suggest the possibility of bias...

With much of the reporting regarding all the terrible upheaval in Israel and the Palestinian territory I have been struck again and again by what I perceived as a subtle, but pervasive bias.

Consider this AP headline, dated 1/13/03: "Seven Palestinians, two Israelis killed in escalating violence ahead of Israeli election"
Link:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/01/13/international0330EST0431.DTL

If you read the article, you'll find that the headline is factually accurate; those are the numbers of people killed in the events the article cites, but I think it implies a moral equivalence to the killings. Take just one of the clashes they detail:

"One attack targeted the village of Gadish, in Israel's north, just 21/2 miles from the West Bank. Just after nightfall, two Palestinian gunmen sneaked in and killed a 48-year-old Israeli man. One of the attackers was run over by an Israeli army officer, and the second was killed in a shootout. The militant Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility."

Had they written a headline for this event alone, would it have read, "Two Palestinians, one Israeli killed in escalating violence ahead of Israeli election"? Is it not essential to the story to indicate that the Israeli was an innocent civilian going about his own business and that the two Palestinians were killed in the process of committing this heinous crime? Yet these deaths are lumped together under a headline that seems to suggest all the deaths were somehow equivalent.

And to those who think I am wrong on this, I would ask how you think the headline would read if you were killed by an intruder in your home who was then killed by police. Do you think the headline would read, "Two dead in house invasion"? I sure don't think so.

PDiddie--
I don't see the quote you refer to on Page 11.

To answer your question, I do agree that what I claim to be the liberal slant to news did not cause voters to choose Democrats in the last election.

But, it HAS caused many people to think Geo Bush's economic stimulus plan is devoid of any items other than those 'aiding the rich.' The rest of the stimulus package has many provisions for elderly, poor, married at middle class,... But, we only hear this from Fox.

We don't know that the Democrat rhetoric coming out of 'news reporters' didn't effect some voters choices.

dys is correct about my source for one article. I can't find the article I had about voting practices and political persuasions of news editors and reporters, however. I thought it was from The Roper Center, but I can't find it.

dys-- (or anybody) a question about sources.

I hesitate to use partisan sources, especially when the writer's commentary is the material I use for a source. As a matter of fact, I haven't done that.

What I point to in these cases, are the statistics they use in their writing. If Bozell has accumilated a set of statistics that he has referenced from a 'reliable' source, sometimes this is the only place I can find facts and figures.

I would much prefer to choose a poll or set of statistics from an unbiased source, but today proves, to me it's not that easy.

Do you refute Bozell's statistics, or just his political bent?