Most of us know it. Maybe you don't yet?
okie wrote:Most of us know it. Maybe you don't yet?
The TRUTH has a liberal bias.
Funny stuff.
okie wrote:Most of us know it. Maybe you don't yet?
Anecdotal Evidence isn't evidence. When you say 'us' you mean the 25-30% of the country which is Conservative.
If you want to throw down on this issue, I can cite plenty of stats which show that Republicans get far more airtime then Dems on the news, in terms of guest appearances and interviews.
Cycloptichorn
Surely we don't need to argue this point? I did a quick search and this was the first one I looked at, but there are plenty more I'm sure. Also, remember lots of liberals think they are moderates, which also skews the statistics. Libs never consider themselves anything but balanced, so many are left but claim to be in the center.
http://www.journalism.org/node/2304
okie wrote:Surely we don't need to argue this point? I did a quick search and this was the first one I looked at, but there are plenty more I'm sure. Also, remember lots of liberals think they are moderates, which also skews the statistics. Libs never consider themselves anything but unbalanced, so many are left but claim to be in the center.
http://www.journalism.org/node/2304
I support people's ability to self-identify. And many who you call 'Liberal'
are moderate.
The political identity of reporters and 'jounalists' is immaterial to what is actually presented on the news. Reporters and Journalists don't decide what to cover, they are told what to cover; by their Conservative producers and managers.
Studies have shown that Republicans and Conservatives get more face time on TV, by far.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200602140002
Cycloptichorn
You can read almost any news reports, example, by AP, and see the bias in the articles, cyclops. The reporters out there that first report an event are very important in terms of the spin of the information, and what information is even reported to begin with.
okie wrote:You can read almost any news reports, example, by AP, and see the bias in the articles, cyclops. The reporters out there that first report an event are very important in terms of the spin of the information, and what information is even reported to begin with.
No,
you see the bias in 'any news report.' That doesn't mean the bias exists outside of your own head, or that it always slants towards Liberal viewpoints.
You are arguing a position which isn't a winner for you, I'm sorry to say.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:Quote: we know the bias of the press
You're wrong about that.
Cycloptichorn
To a conservative anything not conservative is bias. To them Fox Noise is impartial, fair and balanced.
Cycloptichorn wrote:okie wrote:You can read almost any news reports, example, by AP, and see the bias in the articles, cyclops. The reporters out there that first report an event are very important in terms of the spin of the information, and what information is even reported to begin with.
No,
you see the bias in 'any news report.' That doesn't mean the bias exists outside of your own head, or that it always slants towards Liberal viewpoints.
You are arguing a position which isn't a winner for you, I'm sorry to say.
Cycloptichorn
Not a winner with you, but the truth nonetheless. The world of journalism is distinctly more liberal than a cross section of America. And their record of voting shows it. That is established fact.
okie wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:okie wrote:You can read almost any news reports, example, by AP, and see the bias in the articles, cyclops. The reporters out there that first report an event are very important in terms of the spin of the information, and what information is even reported to begin with.
No,
you see the bias in 'any news report.' That doesn't mean the bias exists outside of your own head, or that it always slants towards Liberal viewpoints.
You are arguing a position which isn't a winner for you, I'm sorry to say.
Cycloptichorn
Not a winner with you, but the truth nonetheless. The world of journalism is distinctly more liberal than a cross section of America. And their record of voting shows it. That is established fact.
Only that of JOURNALISTS and REPORTERS. Do you think that these people are the ones who
choose which articles are printed in the paper, or what stories are shown on that evening's news?
Sheesh
Cycloptichorn
Did you -read- Goldberg's book on the topic? It's not just "reporters and journalists", but also their producers, who are in the same cultural niche. Sure, out there somewhere in the CEO chair is doubtless an eviiiiiil capitalist of some stripe, but it's pretty obvious that they're not cherry-picking how topics are handled.
Avatar ADV wrote:Did you -read- Goldberg's book on the topic? It's not just "reporters and journalists", but also their producers, who are in the same cultural niche. Sure, out there somewhere in the CEO chair is doubtless an eviiiiiil capitalist of some stripe, but it's pretty obvious that they're not cherry-picking how topics are handled.
Goldberg?
Jonah Goldberg?
Of
course I didn't read that idiot's book! Sheesh! He's a moron.
I have seen no compelling evidence that the producers are in the same boat. I have seen compelling evidence that Republicans are selected as guests far more often then Democrats. I have seen evidence that the bottom line for media organizations is money, and there's only one party which promises to act in the best interests of Big Business with regularity.
Doesn't take a genius to see that there would be pressure from the top to support those who are supporting
them.
Cycloptichorn
You have selective hearing and vision, cyclops.
okie wrote:You have selective hearing and vision, cyclops.
That's one of those patented Bill Frist, tele-diagnoses, eh?
Cycloptichorn
Well, you -do- have limited vision, after all. ;p
I'll agree that Goldberg is a bit out there these days, but keep in mind that he's there because that's where he was -driven-. Basically, he went from card-carrying member of the Democratic party (and long-time reporter at 60 Minutes) to what he is today precisely because of people who said "of course I didn't look at that idea, the man who proposed it is an idiot." I think the tipping point for him was a report on CBS that characterized Forbes' flat tax idea as "one of the ten wackiest proposals of the campaign season", full stop. Didn't sit well with him - he didn't agree with it, sure, but he felt it deserved better than pure ridicule - and so he wrote an editorial in the WSJ saying so. Then he got fired after his producer told him that what he'd done was tantamount to raping his children.
Goldberg was, to put it bluntly, a little aggrieved, so he wrote Bias, which basically aired a lot of dirty laundry about how news bias is oriented. It did not, I should point out, meet with widespread liberal approval. ;p
If you're defining "conservative bias" as "won't print stories that incite readers to storm the bastions of capitalism", well, okay, by that definition there is definitely a conservative bias in the news. There are, in fact, very very few outright Marxists left in the newsroom (or the nation, for that matter.) But if you define "bias" as consistently taking a position to the left or right of center, then the media definitely has a bias towards the left.
Quote:But if you define "bias" as consistently taking a position to the left or right of center, then the media definitely has a bias towards the left.
Unsupported assertion, nothing more.
The media is biased towards making money, which means that in turn, they are biased towards outrage and scandal and, yaknow,
news. In many cases, this is Liberal; Progressives and Liberals are the driving force of change in our society, and there is naturally going to be more conflict when they butt heads with traditionalists.
I mean, **** - look at the Clinton era. Non-stop media frenzy against Clinton for
two whole years. There was no 'liberal media' then. To say that there is 'definitely' a bias towards the left is inaccurate. There's a bias towards whatever the media feels will make it the most money.
Cycloptichorn
Sure - I certainly cannot deny that the news media gravitates towards ratings above all, which means scandal always gets high billing. It's even worse with the advent of the 24-hour news networks, who'll talk anything to death just to fill up time.
At the same time, that's not what I'm talking about, and you know it. Of course the media is going to address things like scandals and crime stories and whatnot, and when it's doing that, it's definitely not acting in a partisan manner. ("hungry pack of jackals", more like.) But when the media is addressing issues with a political dimension, the usual position taken by the media is unabashedly liberal. "We can fix this problem with government spending," "why aren't officials doing more to stop this crisis," all the like. (To be fair, this is usually prompted by a human-interest angle. But news isn't really the place for sober reflection on the merits of a given proposal...)
I'll point out that plenty of change happens in society without the influence of progressives and liberals. I'll grant it for social issues, but an awful lot of change is driven by science and business, without a particular opinion on the progressiveness of the results...
Avatar ADV wrote:"We can fix this problem with government spending,"
"why aren't officials doing more to stop this crisis,"
These statements in and of themselves have nothing to do with being liberal.
Avatar, you paint a pretty accurate picture. I agree with your assessment.
The human interest angles often have something to do with some poor sucker suffering something because his or her benefits were taken away, or a Republican program is causing them to die, or because there is no insurance, this or that. Also, they can't afford to gas up their poor car because the evil oil companies are making obscene profits. It is an endless parade of naivity and absolute ignorance of any background facts or balance to the stories in regard to the overall picture.
In my opinion, all of this is brought on by a very bad and biased educational system, and on top of that, many young people get into journalism to be activist journalists, not to simply report what happened. They have an axe to grind before they even get into the business. Not all, but many. Simple reporting is not very exciting, and journalists want to influence the political arena, not just report it.
Meanwhile, the people that really produce the essentials, like farmers, construction people, engineers, geologists, and the countless others that go to work every day and don't have time to know what is going on in politics altogether, are innocent bystanders to all of it. These are the people that run the oil companies, build the houses, roads and bridges, design computer produccts, produce goods of all kinds, then when they get home, they have to watch and listen to clueless reporters trashing their businesses and companies. No wonder the rest of us resent the biased news media that get very little of the news very correct and balanced. It is transparently obvious, and one huge reason why talk radio is so popular in fly over country.
You couldn't have an article better suited for this thread:
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070531/economy.html?.v=11
Quote:Economic Growth Skids to a Near Halt
Thursday May 31, 1:46 pm ET
By Jeannine Aversa, AP Economics Writer
Economic Growth Skids to a Near Halt in First Quarter in Worst Showing in Four Years
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Economic growth skidded to a near halt in the first quarter, with the worst showing in more than four years raising concerns about how long the country's sluggish spell will last.
The Commerce Department reported Thursday that gross domestic product increased by just a 0.6 percent pace in the January-through-March period, much weaker than estimated a month ago. Government statisticians slashed by more than half their first estimate of a 1.3 percent growth rate for the quarter.
.6 growth is noooot good
As the mortgage market tightens even more, I expect this number to fall even farther.
Cycloptichorn
