The Liberal Media Strategy?

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: loki8481
true story: the so-called liberal media bias is a myth

Nearly every survey or study of the media in this country has the majority, sometimes as high as 80% of them claiming to be liberal and democrat. You'd have to be deaf, blind, and a fool to believe their own bias doesnt leak into the stories they cover or write. Or really naive to believe such a thing.

Nearly every survey or study has editors, upper management and corporate ownership claiming to be conservative and republican. You'd have to be stupid, retarded and a complete tool to believe that their own bias doesn't reflect which stories they ALLOW to be published and/or get on the air. Or just really naive to believe such a thing.

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist

...
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.

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.

...

Link to the whole study

So let me get this straight....

A study that finds Drudge as the 4th most centric source is supposed to be taken as a standard for proving that there is a liberal bias in the media?

Simple question for you....was this "study" peer reviewed and the methodology found to be sound? I sure can't find anyone other than right-wing bloggers citing it as a definitive statement as to the slanting of the media.

Edit: I did find a peer review of it with an analysis of the authors' methodology at this link.

 

[theeedude]

It's not just the mainstream liberal media doing this. Out-of-the-mainstream conservative media is also talking about Hillary and Obama all the time.
Republican nominees are dull and fighting for the losing ticket.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's not just the mainstream liberal media doing this. Out-of-the-mainstream conservative media is also talking about Hillary and Obama all the time.
Republican nominees are dull and fighting for the losing ticket.

It's because there is no liberal bias. There is no conservative bias either. The only bias is the corporate bias. There are only a handful of corporations who own ALL of these networks, newspapers and radio shows. They have major influence on the voting population by giving air time to the candidates they like who would most benefit their position and power while ignoring the guys like Ron Paul would would like to see their power eroded.


After all, who you going to vote for? Candidate A who is praised all day on the radio by their various "political experts" or Canidate B who--- wait who is Candidate B anyway? Never heard of him...

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's not just the mainstream liberal media doing this. Out-of-the-mainstream conservative media is also talking about Hillary and Obama all the time.
Republican nominees are dull and fighting for the losing ticket.

It's because there is no liberal bias. There is no conservative bias either. The only bias is the corporate bias. There are only a handful of corporations who own ALL of these networks, newspapers and radio shows. They have major influence on the voting population by giving air time to the candidates they like who would most benefit their position and power while ignoring the guys like Ron Paul would would like to see their power eroded.


After all, who you going to vote for? Candidate A who is praised all day on the radio by their various "political experts" or Canidate B who--- wait who is Candidate B anyway? Never heard of him...

Then why are all the Democrats trying to silence conservative talk radio?

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's not just the mainstream liberal media doing this. Out-of-the-mainstream conservative media is also talking about Hillary and Obama all the time.
Republican nominees are dull and fighting for the losing ticket.

It's because there is no liberal bias. There is no conservative bias either. The only bias is the corporate bias. There are only a handful of corporations who own ALL of these networks, newspapers and radio shows. They have major influence on the voting population by giving air time to the candidates they like who would most benefit their position and power while ignoring the guys like Ron Paul would would like to see their power eroded.


After all, who you going to vote for? Candidate A who is praised all day on the radio by their various "political experts" or Canidate B who--- wait who is Candidate B anyway? Never heard of him...

Then why are all the Democrats trying to silence conservative talk radio?

Who is trying to silence conservative talk radio???

They can say whatever lies they like, doesn't bother me. I mean, we all know that facts and reality has a liberal bias, so I don't really feel threatened by conservative radio. Hell, I listen to it some times so that I can hear both sides. (I'm no democrat, btw)

All flaming aside, I haven't heard of someone trying to silence anyone. If this were true, I'd be outraged, as well.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's not just the mainstream liberal media doing this. Out-of-the-mainstream conservative media is also talking about Hillary and Obama all the time.
Republican nominees are dull and fighting for the losing ticket.

It's because there is no liberal bias. There is no conservative bias either. The only bias is the corporate bias. There are only a handful of corporations who own ALL of these networks, newspapers and radio shows. They have major influence on the voting population by giving air time to the candidates they like who would most benefit their position and power while ignoring the guys like Ron Paul would would like to see their power eroded.


After all, who you going to vote for? Candidate A who is praised all day on the radio by their various "political experts" or Canidate B who--- wait who is Candidate B anyway? Never heard of him...

Then why are all the Democrats trying to silence conservative talk radio?

First off, this is a fallacious argument. Democrats are not trying to "silence" conservative talk radio. They are trying to argue that they should get equal airtime and station access.

Secondly, it doesn't matter anyway. Lozina is closer to the truth than any study that you are going to read. The media bias is not liberal or media....it's green (and I don't mean leaning towards Nadar).

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile


Now, let's look at CNN.com tonight. CNN and friends have taken it upon themselves to score tonight's Republican debate. Whom did they pick? A mix between Giuliani and McCain. Are these the same two candidates that CNN.com visitors are voting as the winners? No, of course not. Far be it for CNN to reflect the true opinions of it audience. The CNN.com visitors are picking Ron Paul by a land slide!

Score Card Link

The Ron Paul Gang is officially starting to piss me off. You do realize that every time you click that link... you can vote again! As many times as you want! For hours on end. Click click click... RP RP RP... All night long. Yee haw!

Question 1: Close window
Who do you think won the debate?


1. Ron Paul 54% 5169 votes
2. Rudy Giuliani 12% 1177 votes
3. John McCain 12% 1145 votes
4. Mitt Romney 11% 1085 votes
5. Mike Huckabee 4% 402 votes
6. Tom Tancredo 2% 189 votes
7. Sam Brownback 1% 119 votes
8. Duncan Hunter 1% 117 votes
9. Tommy Thompson 0% 43 votes
10. Jim Gilmore 0% 39 votes

As you can see... The way this particular vote was set up, it would only take a few dozen idiots clicking away to rack up 5100 votes in a short amount of time. Oops... there goes the 1337 hacker theory. Any moron could have skewed this poll.

And the BEST part is the people who just blindly stuck RP into every category without reading the question. In addition to winning the debate, he had the third most disappointing perfomance. :laugh:

Wow you must have a special computer. I cannot vote on that poll more than once. I sense a liar in our midst. But anyway, if you can vote for one candidate more than once, why isnt everyone voting for their candidate more than once, thus balancing itself out overall? Why is it that only Ron Paul supporters are voting multiple times? It makes no sense.

No lies. No special computer. EVERY time I clicked that link it let me vote again. It doesn't work if you just hit refresh, you have to click the link. I said as much in the other thread as well.

In fact, in order to see the results, I HAVE to vote again. :laugh:

Why isn't everyone voting more than once? Oh I dunno. Maybe they aren't a bunch of raving lunatics hell bent on creating a media phenom that doesn't exist by spending hours manipulating any poll they can? Either way, that poll was wide open for manipulation and the RP guys took full advantage of it. And as you can see, the numbers are not impossible to achieve by a small number of people just clicking away.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

No lies. No special computer. EVERY time I clicked that link it let me vote again. It doesn't work if you just hit refresh, you have to click the link. I said as much in the other thread as well.

Why isn't everyone voting more than once? Oh I dunno. Maybe they aren't a bunch of raving lunatics hell bent on creating a media phenom that doesn't exist by spending hours manipulating any poll they can? Either way, that poll was wide open for manipulation and the RP guys took full advantage of it. And as you can see, the numbers are not impossible to achieve by a small number of people just clicking away.

Yeah I see it now, I was refreshing the page before. But nonetheless, even on other polls which were very difficult to post multiple votes like vote.com Ron Paul is always the leader. Every public poll I've personally voted on had Ron Paul on top. The only polls I have not seen Ron Paul on top are those elusive polls they show on TV which I never was able to take part in.

But anyway, you have to admit it's quite a stretch to claim ONLY Ron Paul supporters would take advantage of loop holes in polls. Especially considering candidates like Guiliani have the praise of people like Opie & Anthony listeners. Those are the ones you should look out for...

 

[manowar821]

I can imagine nerds sitting at their computers snorting and giggling louder and louder every time the click on the link and the poll pops up again.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

No lies. No special computer. EVERY time I clicked that link it let me vote again. It doesn't work if you just hit refresh, you have to click the link. I said as much in the other thread as well.

Why isn't everyone voting more than once? Oh I dunno. Maybe they aren't a bunch of raving lunatics hell bent on creating a media phenom that doesn't exist by spending hours manipulating any poll they can? Either way, that poll was wide open for manipulation and the RP guys took full advantage of it. And as you can see, the numbers are not impossible to achieve by a small number of people just clicking away.

Yeah I see it now, I was refreshing the page before. But nonetheless, even on other polls which were very difficult to post multiple votes like vote.com Ron Paul is always the leader. Every public poll I've personally voted on had Ron Paul on top. The only polls I have not seen Ron Paul on top are those elusive polls they show on TV which I never was able to take part in.

But anyway, you have to admit it's quite a stretch to claim ONLY Ron Paul supporters would take advantage of loop holes in polls. Especially considering candidates like Guiliani have the praise of people like Opie & Anthony listeners. Those are the ones you should look out for...

So I'm not a liar! Non-apology accepted. With other polls all you have to do is clear your cache. It doesn't take a rocket scientist.

From everything I've seen and heard from the RP guys (especially when compared to the other candidates on both sides) it's not a stretch at all to believe that the RP campaign has a small but organized effort underway to stir up as much attention as they can.

Just look at this forum. There are how many RP threads? RP has a greater thread count here than all the other candidates combined and they have all been started by the same three or four guys. Why aren't the other candidates' supporters starting thread after thread after thread? I don't know. Sure they could, but they're not. I would imagine it works the same way with the polls.

I'm sure the original intent of all this was to create a buzz through grass roots type campaigning. Get a bunch of people out there pushing RP and his message in the hopes that maybe something would stick and more people would get on board. Now it's turned into some sort of Google Bombing campaign repleat with message board spamming and poll manipulation. It's dirty. And it's apparently backfiring as RP has fallen from whole numbers in the national polls to an asterisk.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's not just the mainstream liberal media doing this. Out-of-the-mainstream conservative media is also talking about Hillary and Obama all the time.
Republican nominees are dull and fighting for the losing ticket.

It's because there is no liberal bias. There is no conservative bias either. The only bias is the corporate bias. There are only a handful of corporations who own ALL of these networks, newspapers and radio shows. They have major influence on the voting population by giving air time to the candidates they like who would most benefit their position and power while ignoring the guys like Ron Paul would would like to see their power eroded.


After all, who you going to vote for? Candidate A who is praised all day on the radio by their various "political experts" or Canidate B who--- wait who is Candidate B anyway? Never heard of him...

Then why are all the Democrats trying to silence conservative talk radio?

First off, this is a fallacious argument. Democrats are not trying to "silence" conservative talk radio. They are trying to argue that they should get equal airtime and station access.

Secondly, it doesn't matter anyway. Lozina is closer to the truth than any study that you are going to read. The media bias is not liberal or media....it's green (and I don't mean leaning towards Nadar).

Use your brain and think about what you are saying?
Here is the line-up for the most popular local AM radio station:
6a-9a local host
9a-12n Glenn Beck
12n-3 Rush
3p-6p Local host
6p-9p Mike Gahhagher
9p-11 Mike McConnel
Now outside of Mike McConnel EVERYONE on that list is a conservative.
Now in order for the Democrats to get their ?equal air time? one of these people will have to come off the air. How is that NOT silencing conservative talk radio?
Here?s the line up for the other major AM talk radio station in Orlando
5a-9a Local host
9a-1p Neal Boortz
1p-3p Clark Howard
3p-7p Sean Hannity
7p-10p Michael Savage
10p-Midnight Mark Levin
Again, everyone host is a conservative, except Clark Howard, so tell me how do you give the Democrats their ?equal time? without kicking one of these guys off the air?

Maybe the Democrats/liberals should try getting on air the old fashion way, starting at the bottom with local shows and working their way up. All of these guys started as local talk shows hosts and were so popular that they went into syndication.
The problem is that no one wants to listen to liberal radio.
So once again the Democrats are doing what they always do when they lose at the ballot box (ratings in this case) they are trying to legislate their way onto the air.

The problem isn?t the Democrats getting access to air time, the problem is, as Air America proved, is that when they do have access NO ONE listens.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

jrenz said:

And so is the conservative media bias myth. So we can throw out this fairness doctrine campaign.

This speaks volumes about the true bias of the media. It also shows conservative media criticism to be highly incoherent.

If the media were truly as "liberal" as they claim, they would jump at the chance to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, for it would give them a voice they didn't have before.

The fact that they oppose it so vigorously proves that they know when they have a good thing, and don't want to give it up.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: loki8481
true story: the so-called liberal media bias is a myth

Nearly every survey or study of the media in this country has the majority, sometimes as high as 80% of them claiming to be liberal and democrat. You'd have to be deaf, blind, and a fool to believe their own bias doesnt leak into the stories they cover or write. Or really naive to believe such a thing.

I'm guessing that a strong majority of those with post-graduate degrees are liberal and democrat. Which may indicate that the highly educated have a liberal bias. But it may also indicate that the highly educated see reality more clearly.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: loki8481
true story: the so-called liberal media bias is a myth

keep repeating that, people will eventually start to believe it. lol

I find it funny how most liberals get EXTREMELY defensive when ever the "liberal media" phrase pops up, I take it almost as a verification of truth. Hell, surveys of most mainstream journalists has them clearly admiting they are left leaning. Kinda stupid trying to pretend someone is not what they themselves admit they are.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Genx87 said:

Nearly every survey or study of the media in this country has the majority, sometimes as high as 80% of them claiming to be liberal and democrat. You'd have to be deaf, blind, and a fool to believe their own bias doesnt leak into the stories they cover or write. Or really naive to believe such a thing.

Laughable!..."naive" indeed.

The "social" conservative agenda is and remains singularly unpopular with the population at large, as evidenced by the fact that the GOP can only win elections by hiding its true objectives and playing "moderate", running scorched-earth campaigns of personal destruction, smear and slander, intimidation of minority voters and other means of depressing voter turnout - and even then only barely.

As Rush Limbaugh gets never tired of telling his white, male and angry audience - it must be someone else's fault. Unable to face the fact that a majority of the population simply does not want theocracy, social darwinism and corporate supremacy, they had to find a scapegoat - or invent one if needed. Thus The "Liberal Media" myth was born.

The "Liberal Media myth" is a propaganda tool employed by conservative radio hosts, columnists and pundits as a convenient excuse why after 20 years their ideology has failed to convince the public at large, and as a memetic inocculation of the public against the evidence that the media bias is in fact a conservative one.

Not only does the liberal media claim have no basis in fact, it also does not make sense considering the issues of media ownership and influence of advertisers.

Most media outlets are owned by a handful of conservative corporations and individuals, and funded by usually economically conservative advertisers who have no need for an educated, alert, independent and critical citizenry.

What they need is a dumb, bored, cynical and apathetic public that has abandoned all critical faculties and is easily distracted by celebrity gossip and mindless reality shows & games. A public that will believe anything it is told, or nothing at all, which amounts to the same end result.

This pro-corporate conservative bias of the media is well-documented and shows itself in consistent under-reporting or ignoring of any information that would lead people to question the fundamental status quo.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
jrenz said:

And so is the conservative media bias myth. So we can throw out this fairness doctrine campaign.

This speaks volumes about the true bias of the media. It also shows conservative media criticism to be highly incoherent.

If the media were truly as "liberal" as they claim, they would jump at the chance to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, for it would give them a voice they didn't have before.

The fact that they oppose it so vigorously proves that they know when they have a good thing, and don't want to give it up.

The Fairness Doctrine would not apply to TV, Cable or Print media because they have no bias (at least that is what they claim.) It would to talk radio because there is a clear and accepted political point of view being pushed. (I think, but am not sure, that the fairness doctrine ONLY applies to radio, maybe someone can prove me right or wrong on this.)

Now if Catie Couric comes out and says ?I present the liberal side of the news? then the right could call for her time to be ?balanced? but that will never happen.

 

[Train]

Among the prominent, or elite, media, 32.3 percent rated themselves as more liberal, compared to 11.8 percent who said they were more conservative. Eight percent rated themselves as solidly ?left,? but none of the media elite would place themselves squarely on the ?right.?

Thats more than TRIPLE the number of libs to conservatives

Nearly four in ten of all journalists surveyed (38.5%) described themselves as Democrats, compared to just 18.8 percent who said they were Republicans. Among the journalists working at prominent news organizations, just 6 percent would admit to being Republicans, compared to 43 percent who said they were Democrats.

Wow, over SEVEN TIMES as many dems as reps.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics.asp

Media Elite Attitudes (%Agree):

Woman has right to choose on abortion: 90%
Strong Affirmative action for blacks 80%

If thats not left leaning, I dont know what is.

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed

This pro-corporate conservative bias of the media is well-documented

Let's see some of this documentation. I'm sure it could be dismissed just as easily as the report I posted was.

and shows itself in consistent under-reporting or ignoring of any information that would lead people to question the fundamental status quo.

You mean like all the good news coming out of Iraq about how well we are doing there, and how we should stay? Wouldn't that be the clearest indicator of a conservative bias?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: jrenz

Originally posted by: lozina

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's not just the mainstream liberal media doing this. Out-of-the-mainstream conservative media is also talking about Hillary and Obama all the time.
Republican nominees are dull and fighting for the losing ticket.

It's because there is no liberal bias. There is no conservative bias either. The only bias is the corporate bias. There are only a handful of corporations who own ALL of these networks, newspapers and radio shows. They have major influence on the voting population by giving air time to the candidates they like who would most benefit their position and power while ignoring the guys like Ron Paul would would like to see their power eroded.


After all, who you going to vote for? Candidate A who is praised all day on the radio by their various "political experts" or Canidate B who--- wait who is Candidate B anyway? Never heard of him...

Then why are all the Democrats trying to silence conservative talk radio?

First off, this is a fallacious argument. Democrats are not trying to "silence" conservative talk radio. They are trying to argue that they should get equal airtime and station access.

Secondly, it doesn't matter anyway. Lozina is closer to the truth than any study that you are going to read. The media bias is not liberal or media....it's green (and I don't mean leaning towards Nadar).

Use your brain and think about what you are saying?
Here is the line-up for the most popular local AM radio station:
6a-9a local host
9a-12n Glenn Beck
12n-3 Rush
3p-6p Local host
6p-9p Mike Gahhagher
9p-11 Mike McConnel
Now outside of Mike McConnel EVERYONE on that list is a conservative.
Now in order for the Democrats to get their ?equal air time? one of these people will have to come off the air. How is that NOT silencing conservative talk radio?
Here?s the line up for the other major AM talk radio station in Orlando
5a-9a Local host
9a-1p Neal Boortz
1p-3p Clark Howard
3p-7p Sean Hannity
7p-10p Michael Savage
10p-Midnight Mark Levin
Again, everyone host is a conservative, except Clark Howard, so tell me how do you give the Democrats their ?equal time? without kicking one of these guys off the air?

Maybe the Democrats/liberals should try getting on air the old fashion way, starting at the bottom with local shows and working their way up. All of these guys started as local talk shows hosts and were so popular that they went into syndication.
The problem is that no one wants to listen to liberal radio.
So once again the Democrats are doing what they always do when they lose at the ballot box (ratings in this case) they are trying to legislate their way onto the air.

The problem isn?t the Democrats getting access to air time, the problem is, as Air America proved, is that when they do have access NO ONE listens.

I know that this will be really hard for you to understand, so I will try to explain it by typing slowly so you can comprehend....

Getting equal airtime does not mean that you take anyone off of the air...just that you put others on ANOTHER station with equal amount of time.

I know that that is a difficult concept for you so, take a few moments before going on. I don't want you to hurt yourself.

You would be very hard pressed to find a station, AM or FM that is locally owned anymore. If they are, they cannot afford to pay the syndication fees to get the blowhards that you listed on the air. So, that must mean that corporate interests are keeping them off the air.

Maybe someone like Clear Channel:

The largest U.S. radio station owner owns over 1,200 full-power AM, FM, and shortwave radio stations, ten satellite radio channels on XM Satellite Radio, and more than 30 television stations in the United States, among other media outlets in other countries.

Or maybe Cox Radio:

Cox Radio, Inc. owns, operates or provides sales and marketing services to 80 stations in 18 markets. This radio portfolio includes 67 FM stations and 13 AM stations. In 15 of its 18 markets, Cox Radio, Inc. operates three or more stations.

Or maybe CBS Radio:

A division of CBS Corporation, CBS RADIO operates 144 radio stations, the majority of which are in the nation's top 50 markets.

Or maybe Entercom Communications:

Entercom owns and operates a nationwide portfolio of radio stations. Our multi-station operations have leading positions in virtually all of our markets, which include: Boston, Seattle, Denver, Sacramento, Cincinnati, Portland, Kansas City, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Austin, Norfolk, Buffalo, New Orleans, Providence, Memphis, Greensboro, Rochester, Greenville/Spartanburg, Madison, Wichita, Wilkes-Barre/Scranton, Springfield and Gainesville/Ocala .

Or maybe Citadel Broadcasting:

Our operating subsidiary, Citadel Broadcasting Company, owns and operates radio stations and holds Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licenses in Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah and Washington.

Or maybe Infinity Broadcasting:

Infinity owns and operates 178 stations, the majority of which are in the nation's top 50 markets.

Or maybe Radio One:

Radio One owns and/or operates 70 radio stations located in 22 urban markets in the United States and reaches approximately 14 million listeners every week.

Wow....if those guys were ever to get together and collude and conspire to keep one form of political speech in the forefront, would it be very hard to get others airtime when most of the channels are owned by them? I wonder......

Nah....these guys would never collude and do anything unethical. Or would they???

 

[Train]

oh noes not the conservative AM Radio monopoly!

I think its pretty clear conservatives dominate talk radio (people with jobs listen to news while people at home on the couch watch TV instead? just an idea.)

But liberals easily dominate TV, Print, and Online (an extension of print and TV)

heres some more studies, the link I posted above has DOZENS of studies from major universities, newspapers, research companies, etc, all pretty much come up with the same results.

In May 2004, the Pew Research Center for The People and The Press (in association with the Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Committee of Concerned Journalists) surveyed 547 journalists and media executives, including 247 at national-level media outlets. The poll was similar to ones conducted by the same group (previously known as the Times Mirror Center for the People and the Press) in 1995 and 1999. The actual polling was done by the Princeton Survey Research Associates.

KEY FINDINGS:

Five times more national journalists identify themselves as ?liberal? (34 percent) than ?conservative? (just 7 percent). In contrast, a survey of the public taken in May 2004 found 20 percent saying they were liberal, and 33 percent saying they were conservative.
The percentage of national reporters saying they are liberal has increased, from 22 percent in 1995 to 34 percent in 2004. The percentage of self-identified conservatives remains low, rising from a meager 4 percent in 1995 to a still-paltry 7 percent in 2004.

Liberals also outnumber conservatives in local newsrooms. Pew found that 23 percent of the local journalists they questioned say they are liberals, while about half as many (12 percent) call themselves conservative.

Most national journalists (55 percent) say the media are ?not critical enough? of President Bush, compared with only eight percent who believe the press has been ?too critical.? In 1995, the poll found just two percent thought journalists had given ?too much? coverage to then-President Clinton?s accomplishments, compared to 48 percent who complained of ?too little? coverage of Clinton?s achievements.

Reporters struggled to name a liberal news organization. According to Pew, ?The New York Times was most often mentioned as the national daily news organization that takes a decidedly liberal point of view, but only by 20% of the national sample.? Only two percent of reporters suggested CNN, ABC, CBS, or NPR were liberal; just one percent named NBC.

Journalists did see ideology at one outlet: ?The single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance ? either liberal or conservative ? is Fox News Channel,? Pew reported. More than two-thirds of national journalists (69 percent) tagged FNC as a conservative news organization, followed by The Washington Times (9 percent) and The Wall Street Journal (8 percent).

 

[jrenz]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Getting equal airtime does not mean that you take anyone off of the air...just that you put others on ANOTHER station with equal amount of time.

You mean another station like Air America?

It's been shown time and time and time and time again that liberal talk radio fails because NOBODY WANTS TO LISTEN TO THEM.

I know that this is really hard for you to understand, so I tried to explain it by typing slowly so you could comprehend....

You would be very hard pressed to find a station, AM or FM that is locally owned anymore. If they are, they cannot afford to pay the syndication fees to get the blowhards that you listed on the air. So, that must mean that corporate interests are keeping them off the air.

So corporate interests are keeping conservative 'blowhards' off the air? What are you talking about?

Like people have said... if corporate interests are driven by money, then if there is a demand for liberal talk radio, the corporations should be jumping at the opportunity to exploit it. I wonder why this hasn't happened....

Maybe someone like Clear Channel:

...

*a bunch of nothing*

Again... what happened to Air America? And all the countless other liberal networks/shows which failed before it?

 

[4X4er]

Originally posted by: jrenz
Again... what happened to Air America?

Are you asking if they are still on the air? If so, the answer is yes.
Here is a link to their website:
http://www.airamerica.com/

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
We all know the Liberal Media.

Sorry, won't read anything past this tired out bullsh!t line.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
We all know the Liberal Media.

Sorry, won't read anything past this tired out bullsh!t line.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

lol, obviously you dont read much, at all.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
We all know the Liberal Media.

Sorry, won't read anything past this tired out bullsh!t line.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

lol, obviously you dont read much, at all.

You are actualy quite right Train. I don't do much reading here since as of late, the freepers posting here can't make it through a post without blaming the "liberal media" for the failings of their leader and party.