If there is no liberal bias in the media...

Were there liberal bias in all of the media, all of the time, you'd likely never have any access to such material. Given that the editors of this journal are taking such steps, all you've demonstrated with this piece is that journalists can be relied upon to assure the balance of their reporting.

Basically, you've lifted a single item and used it to make an accusation at an entire class of individuals--members of the media. But it backfires on you, because in your rush to pick a fight on this subject, you ignored how this very memorandum--if it were taken to be representative, as you obviously would like to suggest--refutes the implied accusation of the title of this thread.

The most obvious refutation of that implication is to inquire about the balance of journalism at such media outlets as Fox News, and to inquire how one can extrapolate from this single item a global statement about the literally thousands of media outlets in this country. You're using this in attempt to get someone to argue with you on your own terms--something which would surely entertain you, but it's a poor effort.

Setanta - Please show me where I wrote any of the following:

1) That there is liberal bias in all of the media, all of the time.

2) That I have made an accusation at an entire class of individuals--members of the media.

3) That I have extrapolated from this single item a global statement about the literally thousands of media outlets in this country.

Or better yet, let's just both agree that those are your words, not mine, and that in arguing them you are merely arguing with yourself, not me.

The phrase "liberal bias in the media" is a global statement, it does not discriminate between any one medium and any other, nor between any one source and any other. Although it often appears to me that you don't care about the logic of language, such a logic exists, and, as you preface your post with that phrase, without any other specificity, it is linguistically logical to assume that you accuse the otherwise undifferentiated media of a liberal bias. Media is the plural of medium, so you weren't speaking of a single medium, or genre, and plurality also implies more than one source. If you wish to make such a statement about The Los Angeles Times, because you have this specific information, then my response would be, once again, that you are hoist on your own petard because you've also provided the evidence that such a slant will not be tolerated by editorial staff.

That's very disingenuous of you, to have used such tendencious language with regard to the media, and then to try to cop out by saying you haven't accused all the media. Given that you were no more specific than simply having used the plural noun media, my inferences were logically taken. You want to qualify after the fact, that's fine, but it is not a refutation of what i've written. Were i a high school advisor to a debating team, and you applied for membership, i'd be likely to turn you down--your arguments are too easily refuted.

So all you're saying, scrat, is that the L.A. Times took steps to ensure that a possible liberal bias was corrected, nothing more general.

Right?

Sic 'em, Soz . . .

heeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .

(Nothin' personal Scrat, i just enjoy the game . . . )

If that's the tack you're going to take, then the purpose of this thread is to point out that there is at least one major U.S. newspaper that likely has some reporters with a liberal bias, to which the response must be -- so what? Every human being carries biases with them, and it should not take too much effort to find another media outlet about which one can say "This reporter at this paper/station/network" has a conservative bias. Then we can proceed, on a case-by-case basis, to try and evaluate the political leanings of every individual at every newsgathering organization in the country. Sounds pretty tedious to me.

If, on the other hand, you were attempting to play with the ongoing debate about whether the American media as a whole displays a liberal bias, Setanta's critique of the information you've presented is quite valid, and his putting those particular words in your virtual mouth may be somewhat hyperbolic -- perhaps "all of the time" should be replaced with "most of the time" or even "a significant amount of the time" -- but is still quite reasonable.

If my first paragraph is applicable -- well, yawn...

If the second is applicable -- well, yawn, as well.

Either we're arguing specifics (and if this is the case, the title "If there is no liberal bias in the media..." is either misleading or is in response to some straw-man's claiming "There is {absolutely} no liberal bias in the media") or generalities (and if this is the case, then blanket statements are going to have to be made and accepted).

Damn, you folks are quick.

stiessd,

Your inadequacies in websearching is no indication of a blanket bias.

In any case with the number of Palestinian deaths being almost 3 times the number of Israeli deaths it is to be expected that there will be more reports on them simply due to a greater frequency of occurance.

CdK, there are almost no reports about Israeli civilian casualties in the media, especially in the European ones (thanks God, I cannot read French, since if I have been able to read a French covering of the events, I would become an anti-Semite). If I did not know what really happens (every year I spend in the ranks at least one month), I would think that IDF was indiscriminately killing everything that is alive. And the reality is very far from this.
The difference in casualties between Israel and terrorists is explained by higher professionalism and better equipment of the soldiers.

It sounds as though Scrat is acknowledging that there is a non sequitur in her opening sentence: "If there is no liberal bias in the media did the editor of the Los Angeles Times, John Carroll, instruct his staff to refrain from displaying their liberal bias in the LA Times?"

Either that, or she is being disingenuouos in her response to Setanta.

Setanta - If I ask you whether there is bad food in the refrigerator, will you tell me that I have stated that all the food is bad?

Steissd -- I cannot speak for the European papers -- but even with that exception, I cannot understand how you can allege that Israeli civilian casualties are not reported in the media.

There are times where not a day goes by for weeks without stories both in print and on radio/television about Israeli civilian casualties. In fact, it seems there are times when it seems Israel dominates the airwaves and newspapers -- with plenty of mention of casualties.

Mr. Apisa, I did not mean the American media, my claims mainly refer to the EU ones, they are very strongly biased toward pro-Palestinian position. The American media has much more balanced approach.

That's because of our liberal media and its pro-Israel agenda, frank.

Weak analogy--i did not at any point make the statment that you had written any of what you referred to in my original post, so, I'll take them in order (noting that the underlined emphasis was provided by you):



What you have done here is to remove a portion of a statement of hypothesis, and, in so doing, you make a feeble attempt to sidestep the tendencious nature of your opening clause ("If there is no liberal bias in the media . . ."). The point of hypothesizing here was to show at the outset that an otherwise unspecified accusation of liberal bias in the media cannot be said to be universal (in case you were inclined to imply such), or you would otherwise not have had the opportunity to obtain the memorandum you present. Which memorandum's validity, by the way, everyone here has had the courtesy to accept from you without quibble, although your source, LA Observed, does not provide any information which would allow one to validate the genuine nature of said memorandum. Having had the courtesy not to question your source (a very cheap forensic trick, and one which i try to avoid in all but the most egregious cases), i did want to point out at the very beginning that there must be at least some access to media that is without liberal bias, the evidence of which is your ability to obtain this document. Nowhere in what i wrote is there the least suggestion that i attribute to you a statement that all of the media have a liberal bias all of time. This is problematic, however, due to the lack of specificity on your part, after having made a global statement (and a strawman argument, as Patio pointed out), you discuss only this single incident at The Los Angeles Times (see Sozobe's post, to which you have not replied.)




In that you have begun your post with the non-specific, strawman argument phrased: "If there is no liberal bias in the media . . ." you are indeed guilty of accusing by inference an entire class--members of the media. Having been no more specific than to identify the media, that is a global accusation unless and until you provide more specific descriptions or examples. This leads us Patio's argument: "Every human being carries biases with them, and it should not take too much effort to find another media outlet about which one can say 'This reporter at this paper/station/network' has a conservative bias. Then we can proceed, on a case-by-case basis, to try and evaluate the political leanings of every individual at every newsgathering organization in the country. Sounds pretty tedious to me." Sounds pretty tedious to me, as well. But his point is well taken--absent any more specific statement from you, examining all newsgathering organizations in the country is the only means of testing the opening thesis of liberal bias in the media--and it is therefore perfectly reasonable to say that you inferentially accuse an entire class--members of the media.



See everything i've written above, and the posts by Sozobe and Patio.



In fact, i was not "arguing them," i was providing a completely reasonable and valid description of the inference to be drawn from the tendencious clause: "If there is no liberal bias in the media . . . " You see, Scrat, you shot yourself in the foot with the first round you fired. As for your refrigerator analogy, it is not correlative. Rather, you would say to me: "If there is no bad food in the refrigerator, what about this . . . " In such a case, my response would be that you should identify which food in the refrigerator is bad, and that i'd then be happy to throw it out (except for that green hamburger--i like to age my ground round before i cook and eat it). You did not preface your post with: "There is liberal bias in the media . . ." rather, you resorted to what Patio has correctly identified as a strawman argument, and which i have described as tendencious.

Ah, yes, the infamous liberal bias in the media rears its ugly head yet again. This despite the ascendancy of Fox News (what bias do they exhibit, Scrat?) and the hiring of folks like Michael Savage at MSNBC. And the millions being poured into conservative publications on campuses around the country.

Can you imagine Roger Ailes sending a memo to the Fox News staff re his concern about perceptions of a conservative bias? It is to laugh...

. . . if, in fact, it is not to cry . . .

Wait, wait, wait. FoxNews isn't an entertainment outlet intended offered as an alternative to Comedy Central's "The Daily Show"? Huh.