Strongest Evidence of Right-Wing Bias in Mass Media

[tomford]

Both sides can find anecdotes to support claims of media bias against them, but when you see major changes in regulations protecting health and safety virtually ignored by the mass media, as explained at www.carefulvoter.org, it's pretty hard to explain away. www.carefulvoter.org

 

[cKGunslinger]

Did you register here just to start trolling? Let me be the first to feed you a delicious ookie.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: tomford
Both sides can find anecdotes to support claims of media bias against them

you mean like when you see major changes in regulations protecting health and safety virtually ignored by the mass media?

but when you see major changes in regulations protecting health and safety virtually ignored by the mass media

ummm, wait,

isn't that an oxymoron?



edit: spellin'

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Your claim is not evidence.

This is evidence.

Thirty million Americans rely on broadcast television for their news. They form opinions based on what they hear and see and to a lesser extent, read. Since citizens cannot cast informed votes or make knowledgeable decisions on matters of public policy if the information on which they depend is distorted, it is vital to American democracy that television news and other media be fair and unbiased.
Conservatives believe the mass media, predominantly television news programs, slant reports in favor of the liberal position on issues. Most Americans agree, as the data below indicate. Yet many members of the media continue to deny a liberal bias.

Evidence of how hard journalists lean to the left was provided by S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, in his groundbreaking 1980 survey of the media elite. Lichter's findings were authoritatively confirmed by the American Association of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in 1988 and 1997 surveys. The most recent ASNE study surveyed 1,037 newspaper reporters found 61 percent identified themselves as/leaning "liberal/Democratic" compared to only 15 percent who identified themselves as/leaning "conservative/Republican."

With the political preferences of the press no longer secret, members of the media argued while personally liberal, they are professionally neutral. They argued their opinions do not matter because as professional journalists, they report what they observe without letting their opinions affect their judgment. But being a journalist is not like being a surveillance camera at an ATM, faithfully recording every scene for future playback. Journalists make subjective decisions every minute of their professional lives. They choose what to cover and what not to cover, which sources are credible and which are not, which quotes to use in a story and which to toss out.

Liberal bias in the news media is a reality. It is not the result of a vast left-wing conspiracy; journalists do not meet secretly to plot how to slant their news reports. But everyday pack journalism often creates an unconscious "groupthink" mentality that taints news coverage and allows only one side of a debate to receive a fair hearing. When that happens, the truth suffers. That is why it is so important news media reports be politically balanced, not biased.

The Media Research Center regularly documents the national media's ongoing liberal bias ? and has since 1987. For a look at media bias in the last decade, the last year or even last night, check the MRC homepage.

The information that follows relays the political composition of the media ? voting patterns, political affiliations and beliefs ? as expressed to researchers by the reporters themselves. This is followed by a review of public opinion on liberal media bias, and what members of the media have said about liberal media bias, and a guide to how to identify liberal media bias.

Is there right-wing bias in the media? Sure. No doubt. It's grossly overshadowed and outwieghed by the existing left-wing bias though.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Did you register here just to start trolling? Let me be the first to feed you a delicious ookie.

Wow. You are sad. I feel sorry for you.

I can just see you in your dimly-lit, stinking troll lair getting angry because someone has a different opinion than you and offeres evidence that your absurd world-view is just that. You get angry, you think about a way to respond, but all you can do is lash out like the angry neo-fascist you are. And hence we get anotether cKGunslinger post. You CAN be helped.

 

[conjur]

The pro-Administration slant is very plain to see on networks such as CNN, MSNBC, and, of course, FOX. Just listening to the likes of Wolf Blitzer, Judy Woodruff, Deborah Norville, Joe Scarborough, et al and one would think Bush's sh*t doesn't stink.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Did you register here just to start trolling? Let me be the first to feed you a delicious ookie.

I can just see you in your dimly-lit, stinking troll lair getting angry because someone has a different opinion than you and offeres evidence that your absurd world-view is just that. You get angry, you think about a way to respond, but all you can do is lash out like the angry neo-fascist you are. And hence we get anotether cKGunslinger post. You CAN be helped.

*shakes head*

I read the entire link he posted (did you?) and saw that yes, Bush kinds sucks at environmental and health policies. What I did not infer from the text, no matter how hard they tried to drill it into the reader, is that the lack of coverage of such things shows some grand, right-wing, conspiratory media bias, as the OP seemed to both fall for and feel the need to both make a new account and proclaim in troll-ish fashion. I'm sorry you don't understand what a troll is and can't recognize troll behavior when you see it and post it. That's not my problem and I don't particularly care. I'm not the least bit angry at the OP, but rather amused, as I am by you. How does that fit in with your "absurd world-view"? (Don't answer, as I don't really care.)

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: conjur
The pro-Administration slant is very plain to see on networks such as CNN, MSNBC, and, of course, FOX. Just listening to the likes of Wolf Blitzer, Judy Woodruff, Deborah Norville, Joe Scarborough, et al and one would think Bush's sh*t doesn't stink.

Did we not see the same thing during Clinton's little "fiascos?" Perhaps it's simply a bias of the media to slant towards the current administration, no matter what the party.

I dunno what you were watching, but *everyone* I saw on the news said Bush did poorly in the debate last week. Maybe it's your choice of channels.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger
Did you register here just to start trolling? Let me be the first to feed you a delicious ookie.

I can just see you in your dimly-lit, stinking troll lair getting angry because someone has a different opinion than you and offeres evidence that your absurd world-view is just that. You get angry, you think about a way to respond, but all you can do is lash out like the angry neo-fascist you are. And hence we get anotether cKGunslinger post. You CAN be helped.

*shakes head*

I read the entire link he posted (did you?) and saw that yes, Bush kinds sucks at environmental and health policies. ... (Don't answer, as I don't really care.)

You bleated without really responding to his post. Now that you've been called out on it you are attempting to save face. I have one or two words for you: FLIP-FLOP. And of course you don't want an answer, you're a bleater.

 

[Pers]

funny cause to me

democrat = republican.

nader said something like...

The difference between Bush and Gore is the velocity at which their knees fall to the ground when corporations knock on the door...


Both sides do corporate favors...that's how they get campaign $$. If john kerry wasn't blowing some major CEO penis, do you think the african american community and hispanic community campaign contributions would be enough to compete with the republican parties campaign? it's funny to see you guys fighting over this crap when both parties are essentially the same sh!t.

 

[piasabird]

Where do you think Rathergate came from???

 

[chess9]

That stuff is not interesting enough to the average American to get much air time. It's important, but not sexy. Let's face it, issues like WMD are much more interesting.

Not much bias, simply not news to many major media outlets.

Dog bites man, no story, man bites dog, story.

Is Fox less likely to do environmental stories than NPR? Sure. But the difference between MSNBC and FOX isn't much in terms of minutes. If they start talking about the Clean Air Act people would be running for their channel changers.

Ignore the brain dead right wingers who weighed in. Pers is just on another parallel universe and speaks some intergalactic dialect for which we have no Rosetta Stone.

-Robert

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: conjur
The pro-Administration slant is very plain to see on networks such as CNN, MSNBC, and, of course, FOX. Just listening to the likes of Wolf Blitzer, Judy Woodruff, Deborah Norville, Joe Scarborough, et al and one would think Bush's sh*t doesn't stink.

Did we not see the same thing during Clinton's little "fiascos?" Perhaps it's simply a bias of the media to slant towards the current administration, no matter what the party.

No, we saw the media then attacking Clinton as heartily as the Republicans. Why are they not attacking Bush over the failed claims of WMDs?

I dunno what you were watching, but *everyone* I saw on the news said Bush did poorly in the debate last week. Maybe it's your choice of channels.

I might ask you the same.

 

[Pers]

Originally posted by: chess9
That stuff is not interesting enough to the average American to get much air time. It's important, but not sexy. Let's face it, issues like WMD are much more interesting.

Not much bias, simply not news to many major media outlets.

Dog bites man, no story, man bites dog, story.

Is Fox less likely to do environmental stories than NPR? Sure. But the difference between MSNBC and FOX isn't much in terms of minutes. If they start talking about the Clean Air Act people would be running for their channel changers.

Ignore the brain dead right wingers who weighed in. Pers is just on another parallel universe and speaks some intergalactic dialect for which we have no Rosetta Stone.

-Robert

hahahahahaahah! i'm a right winger?! what the fvck?!?!!?!?!

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: conjur
No, we saw the media then attacking Clinton as heartily as the Republicans. Why are they not attacking Bush over the failed claims of WMDs?

They're not?

I dunno what you were watching, but *everyone* I saw on the news said Bush did poorly in the debate last week. Maybe it's your choice of channels.

I might ask you the same.

CNN, PBS, and some MSNBC, when I feel the need for some entertainment with my news. 😉

 

[chess9]

Pers:

I didn't identify you as a right winger. We have a team of scientists poised to study you as soon as someone discovers where YOU are. So far, smoke is all we see. No substance. But something is there and scientists want to know if you are the something that got through the SETI Team.
🙂

-Robert

 

[tomford]

I read several pages at MRC and found nothing but out-of-context quotes and empty assertions. Compare MRC to Media Matters for America, which contrasts what the mass media say to provable facts. MRC seems to have little use for facts.

Why would large corporate media lean left when right-wing tax policy and deregulation have done so much for their bottom lines? It just doesn't make sense.

Media Matters for America

 

[tomford]

Originally posted by: chess9
That stuff is not interesting enough to the average American to get much air time. It's important, but not sexy. Let's face it, issues like WMD are much more interesting.

Not much bias, simply not news to many major media outlets.

The media wouldn't have much trouble making these stories "sexy." The local 11:00 news quite often uses a story about a new report on a food or product to avoid as its main tease during prime time promos. People have a natural interest in matters that effect their survival, and even if they didn't, television is great at getting people to take an interest in what it wants them to.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: conjur
The pro-Administration slant is very plain to see on networks such as CNN, MSNBC, and, of course, FOX. Just listening to the likes of Wolf Blitzer, Judy Woodruff, Deborah Norville, Joe Scarborough, et al and one would think Bush's sh*t doesn't stink.

so, wait a sec here. by your logic [one host or commentator makes the ENTIRE network have a bias towords one side of the spectrum or another] then Fox has a huge left wing bias because they air the opinions of Alan Colmes!

get off it conjur, just because one or two hosts on the networks you mentioned [with the exception being Fox] are slightly biased doesnt make the entire network biased. nice try, but no cigar.

 

[conjur]

No...it's more than one or two. Notice my use of the phrase "the likes of" and the "et al" after the list of names?

There are plenty of others.

Also, I've noticed the networks lately have a habit of having 2-3 Republicans and 1 Democrat (or no Democrat) when in a round-table discussion.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: conjur
No...it's more than one or two. Notice my use of the phrase "the likes of" and the "et al" after the list of names?

There are plenty of others.

Also, I've noticed the networks lately have a habit of having 2-3 Republicans and 1 Democrat (or no Democrat) when in a round-table discussion.

well, at least you admit it. perhaps this is CNNs and MSNBCs feeble attempt to make up for YEARS of their left wing slant, by overcompensating and giving unfair advantages. the YEARS of left wing slant is not made up for by having 2 right wingers against 1 left winger. not even close.

and do name the 'et all' please.