An interesting point at the end of the article is even if the members of the press at times (or most times: Fox News) show bias, does it really matter in the end? Despite constantly pointing out all of Bush’s flaws, he was reelected by a public who didn’t listen.
The pols and the people invest the press with great power. Conspiracies abound. Right-wing talk-show hosts love to go on about the liberal media establishment. Lefty commentators accuse the press of rolling over for George W. Bush before the invasion of Iraq. Politicians of all stripes accuse the press of being unfair, even cruel. Sometimes we are. On the day Vice President George H.W. Bush announced for the presidency in October 1987, he watched as his 28-year-old daughter, Doro, wept when she picked up NEWSWEEK’s cover story that week, picturing Bush driving his speedboat under the cover line FIGHTING THE ‘WIMP FACTOR.’
[…]
Certainly, there are editors and publishers who would like to be kingmakers, or just kings. From William Randolph Hearst to Henry Luce to Rupert Murdoch, press barons have sought to leave their personal stamp, if not change the course of history. But for the vast majority of media, the reality is much more mundane; the press’s impact on elections, as well as most other human events, is murky.
I don’t know if I am Liberal or Conservative. I don’t know if those labels even matter anymore, at least for those who think and research. That is the one thing I value in this blog is the thinking and research which goes into the posts.
Here is the BEST REPOST about media bias, which apparently most people has missed. It’s the authoritative word on the subject. “While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper’s news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.
These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.”
So, this answers the question about media bias. READ THE STUDY, IT’S VERY INFORMATIVE AND BACKS UP IT’S CONCLUSIONS IRREFUTABLY.
This also goes back to knowing the bias of what your are reading, and then read from both sides of the isle to get a well rounded picture.
That was, best report…
How about this from the above mentioned study. “The most centrist outlet proved to be the “NewsHour With Jim Lehrer.” CNN’s “NewsNight With Aaron Brown” and ABC’s “Good Morning America” were a close second and third. … The fourth most centrist outlet was “Special Report With Brit Hume” on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC’s “World News Tonight” and NBC’s “Nightly News” to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.
“If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox’s ‘Special Report’ as ABC’s ‘World News’ and NBC’s ‘Nightly News,’ then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news,”
Yes, pure media objectivity is a myth.
But there is another myth — commonly believe by conservatives — that all media is equally biased.
But this is so clearly not true. Many of the “MSM” try for balance. Others, like Thom Hartman make no attempt for balanced but try hard to be fair.
Other networks crow about being “fair and balanced” but are so very much not.
12,
we had a selection?? But WHO selected them??
Someone with LOTS of money to back them.
Even NOW, did you get a vote?? If you DID, you lived in a METRO area, and was a Demo or a Rep, and INVITED.
NEWS is just what the wind blows in from the NorthEastWestSouth – it’s one step below gossip. Get real, the mass media is the pedestrian view. They’re at the 3rd grade level, totally out of it. They beat the drum of propaganda. Their speel is that there are only two sides, not twelve. That Democrats are legitimate. That the USA is a democracy. That the left is Liberal. None of this is true. You have to have a good education to be Liberal and J-Schools teach cultural relativism, that one idea is as good as the next. They’re idiots.
We love to harp on FOX “Fair and Balanced”, which of course it is neither. But in the overall political view Fox is far more fair and balanced than the majority of the MSM.
As per the report UCLA study, “Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS “Evening News,” The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.
Only Fox News’ “Special Report With Brit Hume” and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.
So hear this clearly, 90% of the MSM is left of center! 90%!!!
And of the 10% which is right of center, FOX was found to be not very far right of center while publications such as the New York Times and the Washington Post were found to be far left of center.
So the pundits who are raging against FOX as being the “Far Right” simply do not have a balanced world view.
To illustrate the point further, here are two excellent commentaries, (note -commentaries- not reporting).
One is from a “Left publication”, the Wall Street Journal, and the other is from a “Centrist” publication, the Joplin Globe.
They are about Nanci Pelosi and the “Protect America Act”.
Curiously enough, the Wall Street Journal attacks her while the Joplin Globe defends her!
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120338230850075699.html
http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/local_story_053160718.html?start:int=0
Also…
This is why the Democratic candidate will loose every debate concerning national security with McCain.
Ah Yea–do you have a cite for the LA Study?
What leads you to think Obama can’t present a reasonable position on National Security? Obama is FOR national security–everyone is. Now–should the Feds record every email you send and every phone call you make without subpoena or court review? How will Obama lose an argument saying “NO.”
You make bold declarative statements based on hypotheticals that aren’t even described.
Not good thinking.
Hello Bobbo, glad to see you!
Oops! I must have forgotten to post the link to the Study. My bad.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx
Now this is my small opinion piece, and being somewhat open minded, I welcome your response.
Whichever Democratic candidate wins the nomination, they will have an uphill climb against the appearance of the Democratic party as being weak on national security. Military budget cuts, timetables for withdrawal, etc. whether right or wrong has created this impression. What the Democrats need to do more is to take the offensive and explain the reasoning behind these actions and propose reasonable alternatives to Bush. They haven’t done this sufficiently nor publicly enough. Opposition and silence is not a good advertisement for security.
Now I’m not saying that Obama or Hillary are actually weak on national security, but..
In the gamesmanship of politics, appearances are often perceived as reality.
And this doesn’t help…
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., did not cast votes on Feb. 12 when the Senate approved the updated Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act bill.
Source: http://www.senate.gov.
Again, their silence on issues such as this is not a good way to advertise their position.
McCain on the other hand has solidly put his foot down on where he stands concerning national security. Now if we can get anything from him about his domestic policy….
Two other points.
Bobbo, I really wish to hear your input. I find it very informative.
And, I will be using tinyurl in the future…
joshua I do not think most of the writers on this blog understand Mr Buckleys elocution.
#4–Ah Yea==Stop putting pressure on me to perform. Its hard enough to find the flaws in your positions without also having to overcome my basic agreement with you.
Still–I don’t hear any analysis from you, only a Rush Limbaugh talking point. Everything I see says the Dem turnout this cycle will totally swamp McCain. McCains national security “expertise” (of which being in jail for 6 years is completely neutral if not negative evidence for having any) will not motivate the far right base to come out and vote==and even if they did, again, the registration and primary voting patterns shows a Dem tidal wave. I am confused how the polls just this last week show McCain even if not 1-2 points ahead against Obama. I guess 3 months of primary voting history somehow is being negated??
Anyway, I can’t argue against “most people think the Dems are weak on Nat Sec.” other than to say the opposite?
But Hillary was also seen as stronger than Obama on security and she lost the debate when it came to who drove the bus into the ditch. Obama only wants to help get the bus out of the ditch, while McCain (until 2 days ago?) wanted to drive the bus further into the ditch.
Omphaloskepsis is a difficult if not impossible task. Better to leave it with the gods.
#..31….Catshit….Here, chew on this for a minute or two, and if you have any spare time after watching and reading all those unbiased media groups you mentioned, you could google….**pelosi/trial lawyers or trial lawyers/dems donations* and spend a few days reading all about the lawyers and the legislators.
*****As Congress debates giving immunity to phone companies that assisted the government in tracking terrorist communications, trial lawyers prosecuting those phone companies have poured money into the coffers of Democratic senators, representatives and causes.
Court records and campaign contribution data reveal that 66 trial lawyers representing plaintiffs in lawsuits against these phone companies donated at least $1.5 million to Democrats, including 44 current Democratic senators.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nev., second from left, meets reporters on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Feb. 7, 2008, after Senate Democrats and Republicans reached agreement on an economic stimulus package. From left are, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., Reid, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. (AP Photo/Dennis Cook)
Related Articles
Senate OKs New Rules on Eavesdropping
Bush Threatens Veto in Surveillance Laws
All of the trial lawyers combined only contributed $4,250 to Republicans in comparison. Those contributions were made to: Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.), Rep. Tom Davis (Va.), Sen. Lindsay Graham (S.C.), Sen. Mel Martinez, and Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.).
One maxed-out lawyer donor, Matthew Bergman of Vashon, Washington, has given more than $400,000 in his name to Democrats. In the 2008 cycle alone he donated $78,300 to various campaigns.
Bergman’s law firm’s website says he also specializes in “identifying viable asbestos defendants, locating evidence and developing legal theories to hold offending companies accountable.” In 2004, his firm split a $4.3 billion payout from Halliburton with seven other law firms. $30 million of that was delivered to their firm’s asbestos victim clients.
Another lawyer prosecuting the phone companies is Mikal Watts of Corpus Christi, Texas, who has given more than $200,000 to Democrats. Watts has prosecuted Ford Motors over defective tires and attempted to run against Republican Sen. John Cornyn (Tex.) for the Senate.
Since the New York Times broke a story in late 2005 that found the Bush administration had engaged in surveillance activities with cooperation from phone companies like Verizon, AT&T, and BellSouth, a debate has erupted, largely on party lines, over whether or not to protect those companies from prosecution under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Activities Act.
President Bush has aggressively called on Congress to do so, and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff has testified that FISA “is the radar we have for the 21st century to detect attacks before they happen.”
On Wednesday, the Senate held a critical vote on an amendment to the FISA reauthorization that would grant this immunity. It passed, but 29 Democratic senators voted against it. 24 of them have accepted campaign contributions from trial lawyers who are suing the government over those activities.
Two of them are running for President.
Sen. Barack Obama (D.-Ill.), who is in the running for the Democratic nomination, was given $28,650 from trial lawyers listed as counsel for plaintiffs who are suing those companies becuase they turned over phone records as a part of President Bush’s covert phone surveillance program. $19,150 of that was donated in the last year.
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.-N.Y), the other main contender for the Democratic presidential bid, also accepted money from trial lawyers on the case. Records show those lawyers have poured $34,800 to her and her husband’s campaigns over the years. $12,150 of those donations were made to her within the last year.
The other 22 senators who opposed the amendment and have taken similar donations are: Joe Biden (Del.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Maria Cantwell (Wash.), Ben Cardin (M.D.), Chris Dodd (Conn.), Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Dick Durbin (Ill.), Russ Feingold (Wisc.), Teddy Kennedy (Mass.), John Kerry (Mass.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Frank Lautenberg (N.J.), Patrick Leahy (Vt.), Carl Levin (Mich.) Robert Menendez (N.J.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Jack Reed (R.I.), Harry Reid (Nev.) Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Jon Tester (Mont.) and Ron Wyden (Ore.).
Clinton did not vote Tuesday because she was campaigning. She has, however, voted against granting telephone companies immunity and other FISA reforms in the past.
Since 1997, Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) accepted donations from three lawyers working the FISA case that amount to $10,000. The No.2 Democrat in the Senate, Dick Durbin, who is charged with whipping votes, has accepted $18,350 from 1996 through 2007 from lawyers listed as counsel against phone companies.
Now that FISA has been reauthorized in the Senate, the bill was sent over to the House where an effort to strip the immunity provision is expected. House Republicans are pressuring House Democrats to pass the Senate version of the bill quickly, as it is scheduled to expire on Saturday.
Records show that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.) accepted $3,750 in donations to her campaigns and PACs from these lawyers from 1996-2001. **********
Looks like a link to me. If it smells like a payoff, and it looks like a payoff, it probably is a payoff.
Ha! Ha! Ha! Sorry Bobbo! You’re a good sport.
Yes , you are correct that my current view is more of a talking point than an in-depth analysis. Fortunately I don’t pretend that it is anything else, nor do I pretend to be absolutely right.
I personally see this upcoming presidential election to be one of the most interesting since who knows when.
Here is my personal take, just for laughs:
I like Obama as a person. I think he would be a good neighbor.
I’m not so enamored with Hillary. I think she would be a good Hitman.
I don’t know about McCain, but I wouldn’t turn my back on him.
When it gets close to election time, I think a large part of the decision making process for voters will come down to who can answer these three questions best:
1. “Who is best for the economy?”
2. “Who is best for security?”
3. “Who can we trust?”
The one who answers these questions best wins.
McCain may have an advantage here, he can sit back and review his strategy against whoever wins the Dem nomination. Not to mention, if Hillary and Obama get into a knock-out fight, they may disenfranchise the swing vote of the electorate. Time will tell.
Omphaloskepsis: For me, a good way to find lint…
Ah Yea–so you are guessing just for the heck of it that either 30% of the folks that voted in the Dem primaries are going to switch to McCain–or McCain is going to motivate twice as many republicans to vote for him in the general elections than turned out for the republicans during the primaries while the dems stay flat?
You could stuff a pillow with the amount of omphaloskepsis you need to do to come up with that. How about harusinspection?
Hey, that’s pretty funny! What a mental picture -ugg.
Bobbo, you found me out. Yes, I am a οραματιστής, and here is the future…
McCain Wins.
Why? Because the swing voters get disgusted of the political hacking between Clinton and Obama while the Republicans turn out in droves to put their guy in office!
You must realize that turnout in the primaries has no correlation whatsoever to turnout in the election. The turnout for the Rep’s was low in the primaries because there wasn’t much excitement between McCain, Romney, Guliani, Huckabee, etc. while there is a lot of excitement between Hillary and Obama. Clash of the Titans. (This talk about primaries’ turnout only favors the Reps because it lulls the Dems into a sleepy complacency -insert snoring sounds here-.)
But… When it comes to the election, there will be PLENTY of excitement. McCains political history and -you guessed it- war experience against Obama’s … or Hillary’s !!!!!
Watch the Republican base come out like never before!
How’s that for Prognostication?
This is too much fun, it should be illegal.
Ah Yea—illegal? I sense you might be a Bhuddist==but never a Calvinist!!
Well, I can only repeat my most insightful post made on media bias–“Who Knows?”
I will take the time, from time to time, to argue for what I believe to be the truth; however, that never includes what WILL happen in the future.
Our sesquipedalian circumlocutions must end once you pull out some glyph that is unknown to “moi.”
I love it! Of course, your right. Who knows?
See you tomorrow!
P.S. harusinspection?!
The study of entrails, usually goat, to foresee the future.
I’d look these words up for the spelling but can’t find a dictionary on line that helps me find these words that I “know” but cant spell. I’m always off by a letter or two. Sounds right, ain’t spelled right.
I like words, and the thoughts they build.
Well, thats embarassing: From Online Websters (which really sucks and should be much, much, better)
Haruspication noun
Date: 1871
chiefly British : an act or instance of foretelling something
so, unless there is another word, I had the root correct, but the word wrong. RATS!!!!!
@#50 “because there wasn’t much excitement between McCain, Romney, Guliani, Huckabee”
Look, I’m not anti-anyone, but there was a pretty good reason there wasn’t much excitement in the republican primaries:
1. Romney = super-rich guy who kept changing positions and absurdly said he’d kick all illegal immigrants out of the country. Illegal immigrants are people too. Unforunately, his religion didn’t help.
2. Guiliani = Somewhat iffy past; divorced 2 or 3 times. Like Hillary, someone who likes attention and will say anything to win.
3. Huckleberry. Ugh! An evangelical who hates evolution. Won a lot of the “world is flat” votes down south.
4. McCain. A likable and considerate guy. The “safe” choice. Has a name brand and seems to be defined by his crusade for ethics in government as a knee-jerk reaction to the Keating Five stuff from 2 decades ago. That isn’t bad, in fact it’s probably good, but his comment about “100 years in Iraq” probably will not be helpful to his cause this fall.
Mister Catshit, what type of standard is that? Let’s say some reporters don’t like you and decide to report you are a pedophile. By your standards, I can say that the reporters are unbiased unless bobbo can prove the story isn’t true. The fact is the AWOL story went to press without proper checks, because the reporters’ bias led them to thinking it was good. Why go back four years? That 60 minutes story on Karl Rove was very weak too, and would not run against a Democrat at 60 minuted(except maybe the Vietnam general who sued and won for libel)
Keep in mind that when she testified to Congress, that woman made no mention of meeting Karl Rove, just a phone conversation about Karl.
I could really care less about “bias”. I would just like to see reporting. When a candidate says, “I will move us towards energy independence.” Where is the analysis of their proposal? The facts taken apart and verified. “I’m going to “fix” the economy.” Where’s the press asking for the details and calling B.S. when it is?
#41, oh ya,
I keep reading about this “report”. Yet you don’t publish any links to it.
Then you post two articles and suggest we compare them. Guess what bozo, they are both opinion pieces. Quit confusing opinion and comment with actual news.
Then finally, in #43, you post a link, … to an opinion piece !!! If it was a fair news report, the journalist would have interviewed the subjects and quite possibly some contrary views.
Is the study a fair representation? I see problems right off the bat with the methodology. You can’t judge the bias of a report by the sources!
When you can decipher between opinion and factual reporting then you can rant about being unbiased.
#47, Joshua,
..31….Catshit….Here, chew on this for a minute or two, and if you have any spare time after watching and reading all those unbiased media groups you mentioned, you could google….**pelosi/trial lawyers or trial lawyers/dems donations* and spend a few days reading all about the lawyers and the legislators.
WHAT ??? You want me to do your effen work for you? You claimed the ONLY reason Pelossi wouldn’t back down on giving the telecoms immunity was because the trial lawyers ordered her not to. After five requests for you to back up what you say, and you haven’t, you have the unmitigated audacity, the brazen gall, the almighty nerve to to call my reasoned OPINION BS?
Holy good fuck !!! Have you been sucking those Prius fumes from the battery?
You proceed to point out that several attorneys have donated money to Democrat candidates. Big deal. Were any of them illegal?
BUT WHERE IS THE LINK THAT THEY TOLD HER NOT TO GRANT IMMUNITY BECAUSE THEY WOULD LOSE MONEY?
Typical right wing nut crap. You can’t defend your position so you resort to other bullshit.
#57, Mike,
Let’s say some reporters don’t like you and decide to report you are a pedophile.
If they have evidence that would back them up, then I guess they will publish it. If they don’t have any proof for the charge then that would be libel. I could sue the reporters and the publication for damages.
You have no idea about the difference between opinion, comment and news. 60 Minutes is NOT news. It is commentary on current events. It is not intended to be fair and balanced although I’m sure they try.
Bush was AWOL.
And they might just publish it based on the flimsiest of evidence. Like putting up a woman who makes the claims like they did with the Karl Rove story, or putting up a fake memo like they did with the Bush is AWOL story. By your standard, the burden of proof is then on you to prove them wrong, just like in a court of law with libel claims.
Interesting, Other than Andy Rooney, I thought 60 Minutes was supposed to be in-depth investigative journalism.
If there’s proof of Bush being AWOL, why didn’t Rather use that instead of the fake doc?