Liberal Bias in the Media (At least in Public Radio)

The bias is generally subtle and not detected by those who share the bias or who are not looking for it.

It can be, for instance, in the wording of headlines and the phrase that leads into the story that can give a very different impression than the story itself. The same is true for accompanying photographs selected. An unflattering photograph can create an impression far more lasting than the accompanying story that was much less unflattering of the subject.

There are other subtleties. A negative comment might be made about Bill Smith, congressman from Idaho. Another negative comment might be made about conservative John Jones or John Jones, Republican congressman from Idaho. This is sometimes intentional to do as little damage as possible to a Democrat, as much damage as possible to a Republican, or sometimes it is almost an unconscious reflex on the part of a reporter who holds strong political convictions. It usually isn't even noticed by people who aren't looking for it, but it has a psychological impact.

A news story may go on for four or five paragraphs about the accusations leveled against a political figure and then deep in the story mention that that officials have found no evidence for the accusations. Very few people will bother to read that far, however.

Another trick is that when anything positive is said about a person, it is immediatley followed by a reminder of something negative, however unrelated. This is done to the opposition, but rarely to somebody the reporter (or the City desk editor) voted for.

Do all do this kind of thing. In truth, probably yes, all do. Do all do it to the same degree? No they do not. Some people look for news sources that they are comfortable with which means they generally support the person's own ideology.

Some people don't swallow subtle propanda and politicking and look for news sources that may be less comfortable, but that do present the news and commentary in the least biased way as possible.

0 Replies

Bias in the media
Yes, Virginia, there is left-wing bias in the media, but it is dying a slow, excruciatingly painful death. Even the forced injection of 'Air America' hasn't worked.

For those who haven't heard yet, let me add to your pain - 'Air America' has been dropped in Philadelphia. Yup. Gone. Zippo. Nada. No more.

Libs, of course, know that Philadelphia is a tiny market, with nowhere near the influence of Portland or Santa Cruz. They're a happy bunch.

But what happens when Clear Channel decides not to pour any more bucks down this rathole? Is Uncle George Soros ready to make a multi-million dollar contribution to his ideals? (Hint: Don't hold your breath).

No need to reply - Im just rubbing it in.

fredgmil

0 Replies

The "liberal media" is a myth.

0 Replies

The liberal media - a flaming example from the New York Time
I save this one for people who say that "the liberal media is a myth"...

From two different newspapers, same day (Sep 19), same approximate page placement (P. A17, p.9), same byline - Philip Shenon, New York Times.

The articles are very, very nearly identical, comma for comma. They report Bill Clinton's screed about how the poor have suffered in New Orleans from Katarina due to Bush's anti-poor policies, as opposed to his pro-poor policies.

The 'New York Times' ('National Edition') goes on and on in this vein, and so does the subscriber newspaper, 'The Sacramento Bee' - EXCEPT, one paragraph is entirely deleted from the NY Times:

"According to Census Bureau numbers, the overall poverty rate for 1996 was 13.7 percent, the fourth year of Clinton's presidency. For 2004, it was 12.7 percent." (appears in 'The Sacramento Bee', disappears in 'The New York Times').

This destroys Clinton's entire "argument", and is the ONLY thing deleted from a half-page article, and is only deleted in the Times. (I looked up the Census Bureau numbers and they are correctly reported - 13.7% for Clinton, 12.7% for Bush.

No liberal bias in the media?

Hmmmm.

0 Replies

Re: The liberal media - a flaming example from the New York

fredgmil wrote:

I save this one for people who say that "the liberal media is a myth"...

From two different newspapers, same day (Sep 19), same approximate page placement (P. A17, p.9), same byline - Philip Shenon, New York Times.

The articles are very, very nearly identical, comma for comma. They report Bill Clinton's screed about how the poor have suffered in New Orleans from Katarina due to Bush's anti-poor policies, as opposed to his pro-poor policies.

The 'New York Times' ('National Edition') goes on and on in this vein, and so does the subscriber newspaper, 'The Sacramento Bee' - EXCEPT, one paragraph is entirely deleted from the NY Times:

"According to Census Bureau numbers, the overall poverty rate for 1996 was 13.7 percent, the fourth year of Clinton's presidency. For 2004, it was 12.7 percent." (appears in 'The Sacramento Bee', disappears in 'The New York Times').

This destroys Clinton's entire "argument", and is the ONLY thing deleted from a half-page article, and is only deleted in the Times. (I looked up the Census Bureau numbers and they are correctly reported - 13.7% for Clinton, 12.7% for Bush.

No liberal bias in the media?

Hmmmm.

The New York Times is patently liberal (and the Wall Street Journal -- at least the editorial page -- is patently conservative). But that doesn't really prove anything about the media as a whole, fredgmil.

I do tend to agree that public radio and most TV coverage tends towards a liberal bias, but your NYTimes bit is far from a slam dunk. Nor will I ever buy a liberal media conspiracy.

0 Replies

Liberal conspiracy? No. Not in the sense that they all get together to agree on how they will fool the American public today.

But in very credible polls over the last five to ten years, MSM types from news anchors to reporters to syndicated columnists have reported themselves to be registered Democrats or at least to tilt left of center. Again using the choice of photos, headlines, structure of the news story, where the story is placed on the paper or how many minutes it gets on the evening news--all this reflects bias that exists and there is simply more bias on the Left and there is on the Right because the Left has such a majority control of the news and commentary.

The very few news outlets that tilt right plus Talk Radio which is mostly conservative oriented are generally scorned and maligned by the Left.

When the news source agrees with us personally, we are not likely to see bias or at least do not give it the same importance. But it is out there in all its myriad forms. The example that Fredgmil gave is just one very good illustration.

0 Replies

"I do tend to agree that public radio and most TV coverage tends towards a liberal bias, but your NYTimes bit is far from a slam dunk. Nor will I ever buy a liberal media conspiracy"
__________________________________________

How, then, do you reconcile the deletion of an entire paragraph, and that paragraph ONLY, that refutes the rest of the article in one big, 360-down-the-lane thundering slam dunk?

Conservatives are in a snit over things like this because neither evidence, nor reason, nor smoking gun means anything to "the left". Why is that?

NYTimes: Clinton cites lower poverty rates under his administration would have helped Katrina victims.

Sacramento Bee: Clinton cites lower poverty rates under his administration would have helped Katrina victims, ...but Bee article adds that poverty rates at the same time of their administrations were 13.7% under Clinton and 12.7% under Bush. The authority cited is the Census Bureau, and the numbers check out. And the the author of both nearly identical articles is Philip Shenon of the NY Times.

Why did the Times delete that ONE paragraph and leave the rest of the report exactly the same?

This is awfully similar to the old Politburo members being air-brushed out. Someone at the Times deleted the bad-for-Clinton and the left facts - who? Why? And why does it happen with infuriating regularity?

0 Replies

Quote:

The very few news outlets that tilt right plus Talk Radio which is mostly conservative oriented are generally scorned and maligned by the Left.

This because of two things:

1: Fact-checking

2: Accountability

Neither of which matter at all to the Right, especially on Talk Radio. The reason that talk radio is so full of Righties is the same reason that Direct Mail was huge in the 80's; it is a way to contact people with information without any of that troubling oversight, or that annoying accountability to facts.

Don't believe me? Ask a former FNC reporter, David Shuster:

http://www.heraldtimesonline.com/stories/2005/10/02/column.1002-SH-A3_CMK35541.sto

Quote:

"Editorially, I had issues with story selection," Shuster went on. "But the bigger issue was that there wasn't a tradition or track record of honoring journalistic integrity. I found some reporters at Fox would cut corners or steal information from other sources or in some cases, just make things up. Management would either look the other way or just wouldn't care to take a closer look. I had serious issues with that."

That's why the Right-wing news gets maligned; it isn't news in that traditional sense, it has a lot more to do with Propaganda. Just ask Bush; the WH was recently found guilty of exactly that....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

"That's why the Right-wing news gets maligned; it isn't news in that traditional sense, it has a lot more to do with Propaganda. Just ask Bush; the WH was recently found guilty of exactly that.... "
__________________________________________

Oh? And the president who was convicted of perjury was...?

Please let's not take sides on this one, or at least let's temper our sides. It is disoriemnting to watch "the old media" crumble only to be replaced by "Bill&Bob'sSuper-DuperBlog".

Let's aim higher.

0 Replies

Re: The liberal media - a flaming example from the New York

fredgmil wrote:

I save this one for people who say that "the liberal media is a myth"...

From two different newspapers, same day (Sep 19), same approximate page placement (P. A17, p.9), same byline - Philip Shenon, New York Times.

The articles are very, very nearly identical, comma for comma. They report Bill Clinton's screed about how the poor have suffered in New Orleans from Katarina due to Bush's anti-poor policies, as opposed to his pro-poor policies.

The 'New York Times' ('National Edition') goes on and on in this vein, and so does the subscriber newspaper, 'The Sacramento Bee' - EXCEPT, one paragraph is entirely deleted from the NY Times:

"According to Census Bureau numbers, the overall poverty rate for 1996 was 13.7 percent, the fourth year of Clinton's presidency. For 2004, it was 12.7 percent." (appears in 'The Sacramento Bee', disappears in 'The New York Times').

This destroys Clinton's entire "argument", and is the ONLY thing deleted from a half-page article, and is only deleted in the Times. (I looked up the Census Bureau numbers and they are correctly reported - 13.7% for Clinton, 12.7% for Bush.

No liberal bias in the media?

Hmmmm.

The only thing you have appeared to prove is that the Sac Bee is conservative. Selective use of numbers doesn't show much at all. Find the number for 2000 and it was 11.3%. Find it for 1992 and it was 15.1%. The Sac Bee appears to have inserted numbers into a NYTimes story that distort the records on poverty. Clinton saw a decrease in poverty. Bush has seen an increase.

(Papers often use NYTimes stories and edit or add regional information to them.)

0 Replies

Quote:

Oh? And the president who was convicted of perjury was...?

Please let's not take sides on this one, or at least let's temper our sides. It is disoriemnting to watch "the old media" crumble only to be replaced by "Bill&Bob'sSuper-DuperBlog".

Let's aim higher.

Who said anything about the President? I sure didn't. As far as I know the Prez. has nothing to do with the recent GAO report that the WH uses illegal propaganda. In fact, I'm quite sure that Clinton's WH did the same thing, though not nearly as frequently.

If we want to aim high, we need to be realistic; the media is no more biased one way or the other. The reporters and anchors may identify themselves as liberals, but the Producers? The owners of these giant media companies? Definately conservative.

Why focus on that one part of my post? Address the real meat; the fact that fact-checking and integrity are lacking from most Right-wing news organizations and disseminations, which is what leads to the scorn.

I have no problem with Republicanism or the message of Republicans; who would want a one-party state? Not me. Just lies and deceptions, lack of fact checking, and propaganda. That's what gets me.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Liberal conspiracy? No. Not in the sense that they all get together to agree on how they will fool the American public today.

But in very credible polls over the last five to ten years, MSM types from news anchors to reporters to syndicated columnists have reported themselves to be registered Democrats or at least to tilt left of center. Again using the choice of photos, headlines, structure of the news story, where the story is placed on the paper or how many minutes it gets on the evening news--all this reflects bias that exists and there is simply more bias on the Left and there is on the Right because the Left has such a majority control of the news and commentary.

BZZZZZZ! Thank you for playing....

The correspondents may tend liberal, but the editors and owners (you know, the ones that decide what actually gets printed or aired?) tend conservative.

Liberal media = myth

0 Replies

The Sacramento Bee is so liberal it makes your teeth squeak. It's a common target of the righties in the greater metro area.

Here's the cenus link - http://ask.census.gov/cgi-bin/askcensus.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=94&p_created=1074807307&p_sid=qNk*DcRh&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9NzYmcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXRzPSZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PSZwX3BhZ2U9MSZwX3NlYXJjaF90ZXh0PXBvdmVydHkgaGlzdG9yeQ**&p_li=&p_topview=1

(If it doesn't work, try Googling Census Bureau and you'll get there).

No matter how thin you slice the baloney, the overall average poverty rate for the Bush vs Clinton administration is about 1% in Bush's favor. Attributing administrational factors to a thin slice like 1% is a stretech. But it was Clinton who made the stretch, not Bush.

0 Replies

easy census data
http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov5.html

Look at the 1.00 (all, in stat language) column for Clinton v Bush
yearly poverty rates.

It's the same old story - Never eat at a place called "Mom's", never play poker with a man named "Doc", and never vote for a politician called "Slick".

0 Replies

fredgmil wrote:

"I do tend to agree that public radio and most TV coverage tends towards a liberal bias, but your NYTimes bit is far from a slam dunk. Nor will I ever buy a liberal media conspiracy"
__________________________________________

How, then, do you reconcile the deletion of an entire paragraph, and that paragraph ONLY, that refutes the rest of the article in one big, 360-down-the-lane thundering slam dunk?

Conservatives are in a snit over things like this because neither evidence, nor reason, nor smoking gun means anything to "the left". Why is that?

NYTimes: Clinton cites lower poverty rates under his administration would have helped Katrina victims.

Sacramento Bee: Clinton cites lower poverty rates under his administration would have helped Katrina victims, ...but Bee article adds that poverty rates at the same time of their administrations were 13.7% under Clinton and 12.7% under Bush. The authority cited is the Census Bureau, and the numbers check out. And the the author of both nearly identical articles is Philip Shenon of the NY Times.

Why did the Times delete that ONE paragraph and leave the rest of the report exactly the same?

This is awfully similar to the old Politburo members being air-brushed out. Someone at the Times deleted the bad-for-Clinton and the left facts - who? Why? And why does it happen with infuriating regularity?

I don't think we're meeting eye to eye here, my friend. I already agreed that the NYTimes is liberal. That's how I "reconcile the deletion of an entire paragraph." I'm not defending Philip Shenon; I'm pointing out that he and the Times alone don't show a trend.

That isn't to say I deny a trend; I merely dispute your logic. Read the excerpt from me that you quoted (I acknowledge a trend!) The same goes for Foxfyre. And yes, I'm amply aware (and do not dispute!) that statistics show a bias in MSM. So what? Nearly every field has some form of political bias, from the church, to education, to business. And the same can be said about political correlations in various geographic locales. What should we do about this? Absent a conspiracy (or a planned economy), the answer to these questions must be: absolutely nothing! And does this show, as some people apparently fear, that people are being are being ?'brainwashed' by the media into becoming liberal? It certainly affects people, but people are brainwashed - or affected to some degree - by every social institution. Isolating one part of this equation is a non sequitur.

Finally, establishing a trend says nothing about what causes that trend. What exactly are we trying to show here?

P.S.: When you're posting a link, don't post the full URL. Click on the "URL" button in the edit screen and then use a shortened name as a link. Otherwise you'll mess up the screen, as it's messed up now. Smile

0 Replies

Re: easy census data

fredgmil wrote:

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov5.html

Look at the 1.00 (all, in stat language) column for Clinton v Bush
yearly poverty rates.

It's the same old story - Never eat at a place called "Mom's", never play poker with a man named "Doc", and never vote for a politician called "Slick".

Your point is what? It shows that poverty went DOWN every year under Clinton and went UP every year under Bush.

Selectively using a single year to compare to another single year is not a good comparison and is usually done for partisan purposes. Therefore it is logically to claim that using selective stats to attack Clinton shows a conservative bias. Your argument about it proving the NYTimes is biases is baseless. Removing a stat that has no real value is hardly bias. INCLUDING such a stat SHOWS BIAS. It is EASY to pick stats to make any president look bad.

Compare the number of soldiers dying on a given day under Bush to a given day under Clinton. On Oct 5th of Bush's first year of his second term, 5 US soldiers died. On Oct 5th of Clinton's first year of his second term zero US soldiers died. Such a use of stats would show bias don't you agree? It is a cherry picked stat taken out of context.

0 Replies

I'll see your Sacramento Bee and raise you Fox News.

0 Replies

Hi guys,
I'm trying to write about groups that typically get a bad rep in mainstream culture (like the KKK and other white supremacy groups) and was wondering if you'd be willing to chat? I know it's kinda a strange request, but it's nothing super negative or anti-KKK--Just want to get some different opinions and viewpoints. If you'd be willing to chat for a tiny bit that'd be awesome. I'm just looking for more diverse opinions than what is commonly presented.
Best,
Madi

3 Replies

@MadiMoor,

yeh, KKKK is oft much maligned . Its just a fraternal order like the Knights of Coluebus

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Snork!

0 Replies

Liberal Bias in the Media (At least in Public Radio)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know