http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485

144 journalists...made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.

Herb

I have been thinking a lot about some root causes of " media bias." I really do think it exists. I think it's much less sinister than some get accused of - but I do believe it's prevalent.

I'm going to address this later, in a very outlandish sounding theory.

Are you excited? I know I am!

There is most definitely media bias. But it's not to the left. (Or the right.) Sometimes the mainstream media biases to the right to show that they aren't left-biased.

Anyone with a pet theory about left-wing media bias needs to explain how the New York Times and the other so-called left-leaning media became cheerleaders for the Iraq war in 2002-2003, how smear ads by the Swift Boat Veterans in 2004 against Kerry were unchallenged for weeks (and soon found to be lacking in truth), how there were more favorable stories about George W. Bush than about Al Gore in the 2000 presidental campaign, or how so many factually incorrect articles were published about the Whitewater affair in the 1990s.

Andrew

It's really quite simple. The bias is towards the side with the most dirty laundry that will get the best ratings or sell the most papers! There's no news like bad news!

Herb...
What about the PEOPLE and COMPAINES that own or employ those said Journalists????
ULTRA-ELEITIST RIGHT WINGERS?????
Guaranteed!

THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!



Herrb

"THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!"

That's precisely what the left is saying about so-called global warming.

Herb

You've gotta admire Herb's persistence. The man is always "right" there.

"Now the gloves come off!"

Aw, you're too kind. Flattery will get you everywhere.

Watch out for those ham-fists, however, when the gloves come off of Mr. Thompson.

Herbert M.

The media bias is that the media is cheap! Only 144 out of thousands contributed at all.

Author: Herb
Thursday, June 21, 2007 - 9:56 pm


"THE SKY IS FALLING!!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!"

That's precisely what the left is saying about so-called global warming.

Herb



So....what would the right have you believe? There is no problem or cause for alarm, everything is fine. Right up until the point that the planet get's so hot and the ozone layer get's to thin that when you go clothes shopping the tags then read "Meduim-Well" and "Extra-Crispy"! You won't be using any SPF30 no more you'll be using reflective sun blocking paint from Dutch Boy! We will all look like the Microsoft Blue Men walking the streets!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5587879641696978294&q=global+warming&to tal=13847&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

There is a problem and simply ignoring and disputing it will allow it to get worse and maybe even beyond the point of recovery. Then it's put your head between you leg's and kiss your ass goodbye.

He simply doesn't care because he'll be dead before all the fish are. Maybe.

He's too busy putting all his "energy" into the anti-gay and abortion agendas and how they relate to his bible to bother with that "steward of the earth" crap.

OH.....you mean sticking his nose in other people's bizness!

I can hardly wait for the time in say about 50 years when the world will be facing managed population expansion. I can see the right wingers jumping up and down behind their pulpit's shaking their bible's already! It's inevitable, the world cannot keep going at the same pace and expect to survive. The only other population control we have seen throughout history has been war and that prospect with the nuclear options available will most certainly bring about global extinction of the human race!

Please check the nearest emergency exit while you are flying on planet earth, oh wait, there aren't any! Oh well, in case of global warming you can use the person next to you as a flotation device!

You know it really does not show that the majority of reporters are liberal; it is just the conservative ones are too cheap or do not want to waste their money.

"You know it really does not show that the majority of reporters are liberal..."

All the evidence in the world wouldn't convince liberals of media bias. As award-winning reporter Bernard Goldberg says,

"All those lefties getting so much face time on Fox should make your run-of-the mill liberals very happy, right? But it doesn't. Why? Two reasons: First, they don't ever notice the liberals on Fox, in much the same way that a fish doesn't notice the water he's swimming in. Seeing liberals on the news seems so natural to liberals that it doesn't register as any big deal."

Herb

Herb writes:
All the evidence in the world wouldn't convince liberals of media bias.

And yet, you produce not one shred of evidence. Shocking, isn't it?

As for liberals on Fox: they are largely patsys, either the extremely loney left (who look silly no matter which network they are on) or pushovers like alan colmes whom Sean Hannity easily gets the best of. Plus, the liberal guests don't get to control the format of the shows or the editing of the tape. A Michael Moore may go on Fox to promote his movie but he can't control how his interview will be edited or portrayed.

Andrew

"And yet, you produce not one shred of evidence."

I've provided PLENTY of proof. Just because you don't want to admit it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I could say that Dewey defeated Truman. T'ain't necessarily so.

Herb

Herb writes:
I've provided PLENTY of proof.

Where? Examples?

What about my examples of bias toward the right? Don't they pretty much disprove your theory?

Andrew

(Spin it!)
Ooh-ooh-ooh-oohooh ...

(Let's begin it)
(Bear 'n grin it!)
(Spin it!)

Oh-ee-yeah
Oh-ee-yoh
Friends for life, through thick and thin
With another tale to spin
Oh-ee-yeah
Oh-ee-yoh
All the trouble we get in
With another tale to spin

(Spin it!)
Ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh ...
(Spin it again!)
Ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh ...

Oh-ee-yeah
Oh-ee-yoh
Oh-ee-yeah
Oh-ee-yoh
Hey! Hey! Hey!
Spin it
Let's begin it
Bear 'n grin it
When you're in it
You can win it
In a minute
When you spin it, spin it, spin it!
So spin it!
Tale Spin!

Oh-ee-yeah
Oh-ee-yoh
Friends for life, through thick and thin
With another tale to spin
Oh-ee-yeah
Oh-ee-yoh
All the trouble we get in
With another tale to spin

(Spin it!)
Ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh ...
(Spin it again!)
Ooh-ooh-ooh-ooh ....

Andrew: "how smear ads by the Swift Boat Veterans in 2004 against Kerry were unchallenged for weeks"

The liberal mainstream media at first ignored the ads to help Kerry. If weren't for talk radio and Cable talk shows we would never have known about the swift boat ads. The liberal mainstream media responded by denouncing the ads.

Andrew: "how there were more favorable stories about George W. Bush than about Al Gore in the 2000 presidental campaign."

That's just your opinion.

The swift boat vets told the truth, which is why Kerry still refuses to release his full military records.

It might be kind of hard to explain that less than honorable discharge.

Nwokie writes:
The swift boat vets told the truth, which is why Kerry still refuses to release his full military records.

And if you believe they were telling the truth, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

http://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded_group_attacks_kerrys_war_record.html

One of the guys (Thurlow) who claimed there was no shooting the time Kerry got his Bronze Star...yet Thurlow's own citation for that day says all units were receiving fire!

Andrew

One day there's gonna be a movie about the Swift Boat liars. You couldn't make up a believable story like this. Mark my words.

nwokie sez: "Kerry still refuses to release his full military records."

I'd say the PRESIDENT has yet to release a few things as well about his vacation . . . ahem, time in the Texas Air Guard.

And we had such a great media discussion going too.

Does anyone have some solid information that says what one reports is tied to ones voting record or contributions?

I've been hearing that majority of reporters contributed to liberal causes bit, often with the same exact words, a lot.

Nobody seems able to tie that into the vetting process that affects what we actually receive. For all but a few, their copy gets edited, story lines rejected, assignments given, etc... by editors.

And editors are chosen by owners and significant others, having to do with the media company as a whole.

I don't think that stat makes any sense until those things are considered. If you haven't read it, the Media Matters study, linked here:

http://home.ourfuture.org/assets/20070612_theprogressivemajority_report.pdf

shows our media not in line with the obvious implied meaning behind that often quoted stat. It says, our media is serving bigger interests more than us, and it also says the media generally is not all that progressive or liberal, and finally it says a majority of Americans do not agree with the media leaning generally speaking.

They spent their time, as did the Center for American Progress, doing their homework and published their results. Said results do not support the idea of a media biased hard left.

The implication here is clear: We are being played.

So, how about some reasoning to refute these things, instead of dodges off onto Kerry, etc...

A lot of things seem to be justified on the idea of liberal media bias:

-FOX news
-dominance of rightie talk radio
-basic positioning and framing on common issues
-the statement: "most americans..."

The two studies, verified with warm bodies consuming media, taking notes, etc... do not support a strong liberal bias to the media generally speaking. There are niches, but overall, it's not well aligned with majority American views. Also, said majority American views are not well aligned with the current GOP agenda.

I think we are being played on a number of levels here, unless there is solid information to refute the studies recently published on talk radio and TV, Newspaper media.

***BTW: The major liberal blogs appear to be the most closely aligned with the published majority American views, linked in the paper above. IMHO, this is significant because NONE of the major players are happy with that development!

"Does anyone have some solid information that says what one reports is tied to ones voting record or contributions?"

It's common sense. Would you expect dog-owning reporters to write hit pieces against dog owners?

Would you expect reporters who are roast lamb lovers to take lamb eaters to task for eating lamb? Of course not.

In the same way, reporters who vote for, and as shown, contribute to liberal candidates, see the world through their own prism and that indeed colours their perspective. Fox news is fair but leans right. It's intellectually dishonest for liberals to deny that the media overall leans left.

Think. We're talking common sense. Don't try to spin this.

Reporting is largely framing...deciding where to shine one's flashlight in looking for a story and an angle.

By focusing on so much left-driven pap, it's axiomatic that as Mr. Goldberg states, that like the fish in water, liberal reporters [and they are indeed the majority] don't even realize the milieu they've immersed themselves in.

Herb

Media Bias...
Hmmmm...
You think naked news is slightly tipped in favor of the male audience?

I know how I vote and what I believe is not always reflected in the job I do. I'm sure it's no different for your average reporter.

The bar has been raised by these two organizations. Liberal media bias is in question period. That puts those things that leverage it into question as well.

Some work has been done on this subject. Results published and said results do not support the idea of our media being liberal, to the point of being a problem. What is suggested is that things have pulled far to the right, thus shifting the perception of what is liberal to a more centrist / moderate position.

Either those results are flawed in some fashion, or not. Until they are shown to be flawed, they should stand as we've no real reason to do otherwise right?

Therefore, we really cannot say liberal media bias is a problem, now can we? That's common sense, right?

Also, either we are going to reason through this or not. I'm choosing to reason. Makes sense doesn't it? Common sense actually!

From here, we attack the information published. That's not attacking the organization publishing said information. They put their cards on the table and make no misrepresentations as to their interest. Said interest is countering the idea that we have too liberal of a media because progressive / liberal causes are harmed by this assumption, if it is not factually defensible.

Right now, it isn't --unless we've got some solid, fact based information, to support some greater discussion.

Rightie think tanks are not exactly out there right now publishing counter claims! Wonder why that is exactly? The most obvious conclusion is there are no facts to support said claims, thus the focus on attacking the organizations.

That too is common sense, wouldn't you say?

Seems to me, barring some new information brought to the table, you Herb and Deane, owe me an apology for implying my credence here was diminished through this statement: "There is no liberal media bias. Prove otherwise."

I was just a bit early, that's all.

Of course I don't really expect this, so rest easy!

I just wanted it on record, and there is the simple truth: "One does not get unless one asks!"

"It's common sense. Would you expect dog-owning reporters to write hit pieces against dog owners?"

Ahh, "common sense", the catch-all explanation for every personal bias.

So by your logic, the conservative mailman(excuse me, "letter carrier") would be expected to throw away any letters from liberal organizations, right? Oh, wait, you think that they'd probably be caught and fired for showing that kind of bias?

While it may be true that the majority of people drawn to journalism may have liberal views (and it stands to reason, because the desire to "help disseminate the truth" or whatever you want to call it seems like a liberal ideal), your logic makes an unfounded assumption.

That false assumption being that those people who are drawn to journalism also lack the ethics which would compel them to not allow their personal feelings to influence their job(see the mailman analogy above).

Some may argue that these personal biases may sometimes slip through, unintentionally. As Missing mentioned above, that's why journalists have editors, to keep them in line.

If you make the assumption that journalists introduce a liberal bias(which may slip through on occasion), and you account for the fact that journalists must answer to their editors, and the editors must answer to the owners, and the owners are likely to have a *conservative* bias (and are more likely to actually allow that bias to influence their work), then one must logically conclude that the media would actually tend to have a *conservative* bias on a macro scale.

If we look to history for confirmation of this theory, we see that the yellow journalists of old were not biased according to the views of the journalists themselves, but rather by the views of the *publishers* of the papers in question.

"So by your logic, the conservative mailman(excuse me, "letter carrier") would be expected to throw away any letters from liberal organizations, right?"

No and one good reason is because tampering with the US mail would be a felony.

But you bring up a good point. I only wish yellow journalists had the ethics of our mail carriers.

Mock common sense all you want. It says a lot.

Herb

Oh, so we ignore a well stated counter point?

Just FYI, the Media Matters paper, linked here in the "Conservative Majority is a Myth" thread, concludes exactly what tadc stated above.

"...that's why journalists have editors, to keep them in line."

For that claim to be valid, you'd have to prove that editors are substantially different in their views than reporters.

Herb

Back to the comment that we "lefties" should appreciate "all the lefties" on FOX News.

Huh? You mean the minor league, token "lefties" they bring on to then interrupt and harangue? Or the "lefties" that Bill O'Reilly has on to scream at? Or the token wimp Alan Colmes? All they are is fodder for the FOX "righties".

Come on.

Your non-token lefties are terrified they won't get soft-ball pitches on Fox News like the ones they receive from fellow traveler Larry King.

Plenty of conservatives go on CNN. The left brings the term wimpish to a new low.

Herb

Plus, they're ham-fisted.

Herb.....Your so far up the Republican Party's ass that the rest of the world must seem like one giant colon from your viewpoint!

Can I get a Plonk Please?

Absofuckinglutely!

*Plonk!*

HerrB told me he's staying up late to catch Paris Hilton on Larry King.

He said hopefully he can tear himself away from the non-stop Fox coverage of the cop who killed his pregnant girlfriend.

Isn't that a polyp on the troll's colon? Looks like a colonoscopy is in order. stat.

Use the biggest black XXL hose, it's impacted.

Dr. Democrat, paging Dr. Democrat. The Republican party colonoscopy scheduled for 2008 has been moved up....seems that they are so full of shit it can't wait that long!

While looking at the list of media people and their contributions, I noted that some of them were fashion editors, writers of food columns, TV anchors, etc. Having these people brought under scrutiny raises some tricky philosopphical questions:
1) Are there people who, by the nature of their jobs, should never give money to political causes?
2) Is there some boundary beyond which a media person, such as a reporter, a radio/TV anchor, a columninst, a video editor, a producer, etc. should be allowed to have a private life?

Another important question is: MSNBC found that 144 people in the media made political contributions, but what percentage does this represent of all people employed in that industry? Since, by law, political organizations are required to record and report on the professions and employers of their contributors, all that MSNBC's reporters would have had to do to compile their information is to look through contributor records, looking for specific professions and employers. This does not provide the same type of data that studying, say everybody who works at CBS News, would.

What if somebody did a search for people who work in the trucking industry and found similar results? Would that indicate a liberal bias in the trucking industry?

Why would anyone care what party the sports columnist, drama critic, food columnist, etc, etc gave their money to? I don't think anyone cares.

If the media is so god-damn liberal, how come 41% of Americans believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11? That's 5% above what it was a couple of years ago. Not all of those people could be watching Fox.