Bemused giggles.

We can fill 100 pages of this thread with such "studies", with conclusions all over the map.

Indeed, the study you cite uses highly questionable methodology to create their data. To be fair, they are using traditional methods to produce the same traditional result. That is to say, the method is designed to produce the result.

For example... from the UCLA study...

This is the same silly methodology used to rank the 'liberal-ness' or 'conservative-ness' of Members of Congress. It assumes that the 50% middle point of Congress equals the 50% middle point of the populace (or electorate). This is patently false. Secondly, this same methodology overlooks the nature of Congressional legislation - omnibus bills with hundreds of 'tack-ons', 'riders' and 'earmarks'. It is virtually impossible to have a bill in Congress that addresses only a single issue (the one being measured). Indeed, Kerry was certainly "for it before he was against it" simply by virtue of these omnibus bills.

And one need hardly mention that mass media outfits are obsessed with presenting the appearance of 'balanced' coverage and as such, usually always cite a liberal 'source' to balance against a 'conservative' source. Such is what passes for journalistic balance in the USA. One cannot take this as meaningful data.

And finally, as I've repeatedly stated in all such media bias arguments, the issue is about what is chosen NOT to be covered, not what drivel they publish/print/broadcast. Indeed, the greatest bias of the mass media has nothing to do with 'republican/democrat' or 'liberal/conservative'.

Btw, did you find a US network reporting on the fact that over 50% of Americans are opposed to the Iraq war?

That's the thread question here.

It is a good example of a highly relevant 'news-fact' being collectively ignored (starved of attention) because it contradicts the elite narrative. All the purported studies in the world can't debunk that actual fact.

__________________
[I]Remember what the dormouse said, 'feed your head'. [/I]

I read it in "This just in" a memoir by Bob Schiefer who is a personal friend and of course colleague of Mr. Wallace. Bob interviewed Wallace for the book, Wallace himself recounted the story.

The story made you uncomfortable so you attack the way it was done. Typical liberal tactic when you can't deal with the facts that are unpleasant to you.

Big media is liberal biased. Period. I've recognized this over 20 years ago.

And take Waltker Kronkite for example. He's an admitted liberal and I saw special about him the other day on tv and he said that when he had gotten started, he asked to have some control over the editoral content, stories, what to report and not report, and other related things.

And here is a nice admission of bias from Kronkite:
In response to a question about media bias, Cronkite said the press is not politically partisan but does tilt toward liberalism.

I got this from 03/19/03 - Posted 12:19:32 AM from the Daily Record newsroom. Story by Rob Jennings

And lets not forget that over 80% of the reporters in Washington DC are democrats.


Smoke a lot of pot?

The thread question is What Liberal Media?.

A lot of fancy words that don't mean jack.

Face it. The media is liberal biased. I see or read the bias everyday. Heck, we've even got a smoking gun.

Oh, and here are a few more examples:

A top producer at ABC News said in an email that Bush "makes him sick."

How about the CNN 'accident' on May 15, 2006 where they put him live on the air when he was false-starting his immigration speech?
Accident, or a move by someone else who Bush makes sick to embarrass him?

Here is another Kronkite admission that is in the following quote by him:
"I would call myself a liberal, but I hope I don't lose my ability to be dispassionate. I would think I would use reporting to say things with intelligence, as I see it, but not let ideology get in the way. . . . My first column" -- in August -- "would be setting the record straight and pointing out what is a liberal and explaining why I think most reporters are liberals."
Got it from the Washington Post.

How about this from the executive editor of the NYTimes published June 26, 2005 3:00 PM ET.

Title: Keller Says 'N.Y. Times' Must Look Beyond Its Urban, Liberal Base

A troubling (to you that is) excerpt:
NEW YORK In a lengthy memo published on the newspaper's Web site, Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, announced several new policies in response to a recent report by the paper's Credibility Committee. Among them is a fresh attempt to diversify the Times' staff and viewpoints, and not in the usual racial or gender ways, but in political, religious and cultural areas as well. __The aim, he wrote, is "to stretch beyond our predominantly urban, culturally liberal orientation,

I got the above from editorandpublisher.com right after it was posted on the web.

These admissions of liberal bias are from your guys. What more proof do you want???

Case closed. Again...

Kramer

Then why did the media not cover up the Clinton fiasco?

For every story that you can find with a liberal bias there is one with a conservative bias. The media isn't trying to support one side or another, they are just trying to sell advertising space. Nothing more and nothing less. Media is a business, and as in all businesses profits are more important than anything else.

It's not about biases, it's about money.

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

Reality has a Liberal Bias.
If you accept that the news media has as their first and foremost goal, their own success, and that their success almost invariably derives from the number of people who return to get news from them, then the news media competes for readers/listeners/viewers by establishing themselves first and foremost as a reliable source of news. So the major stories of the day will get reported with the same established facts, if the stock market is up, interest rates are down and Presidents poll numbers are making new lows, every media outlet will have the same facts.

This is important to remember, the news media seeks consumers of news, because Al Jazeera and the Wall Street Journal both want to be regarded as sources of truth. Since these particular two examples are going for different audiences, the news they choose to feature will differ.
Al Jazeera will show dead lebanese babies, because that is the story that is of prime interest to TV viewers in the Middle East. The Wall Street Journal editorial staff knows that it would lose subscribers if it lead with dead lebanese baby pictures day after day.

The consumer also influences the media, I have a choice of papers, a choice of TV news, a choice of websites, my patronage influences the outlet.
The more people go a a particular outlet, the bigger a share of market that outlet gets. If the media seems to be Liberal, it's because the readers/listeners/viewers have chosen to read/listen/view the more liberal outlets.

A more interesting study compared support for the president, with misperceptions about the Iraq war.
People were asked true/false questions about issues that had received widespread coverage, and where the facts were not in dispute.
They were asked what there primary news source was.
They were asked if they were voting for Bush or Kerry.
Those who got their news from NPR/PBS had the fewest misperceptions, those who got their news from FOX had the most.
And those with the fewest misperceptions were most likely to vote for Kerry, those with the most misperceptions were most likely to vote for Bush.
http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi...t=102&lb=brusc

__________________
"I think -- tide turning -- see, as I remember --I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of -- it's easy to see a tide turn -- did I say those words?"
-- George W. Bush, asked if the tide is turning in Iraq

If I remember correctly, Newsweek had the Monica story but was going to not publish it but somehow, Drudge found out and posted it on the Drudgreport. So if my recollection is correct, a liberal media source did try to cover it up.

I'm surprised that you still question the bias. I posted several links with supporting data that says it exists. I've been noticing it myself for over 20 years. I suppose that you also think there is no pro-liberal bias in the movies that come out of Leftywood?

I've almost come to the conclusion that we would be better off with biased media outlets. This way, we could get the full story because the liberal media would be trying to get as much dirt on conservatives as possible to inform us while the conservative media would be doing the same. All we would have to do is watch (or read) the story from the liberal source and conservative source to get the full story.

Kramer

It always amuses me that people buy into this "liberal media" fantasy when it is obvious to anyone who thinks about it for even a few minutes that this oculd not possibly be true.

Media outlets in this country are mostly owned by huge multinational corporations. There are exceptions like the washington times, faux news, and the weekly standard which are far right propaganda organs for their respective political advocacy organizations (the moonies, rupert murdoch, and PNAC). Huge corporations have a vested interest in maintaining pro big business republicans in power. And yet media screamers like limbaugh, hannity, oreilly, coulter, north, savage, etc. have repeated this lie so many times over so many years that some people actually believe it.

I'm not saying biases don't exist, I'm saying the biases are profit driven.

What would the media's agenda be? How does the media benefit from a liberal government? Why would the media have liberal bias?

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.

I've mentioned this example in earlier threads, but it is one which shows how a person could buy into the concept of a liberal media. Here is what happened: A Bush White House staffer got a call from his cousin, with whom he had not had contact for many years. She was working on the staff of a prominent Democrat in the US Congress and said that, since they were both in Washington, she'd like to get together for dinner. Soon, she was calling her cousin in the White House more and more, and the conversations were getting stranger and stranger. Before long, she started pressing him for classified information. The White House staffer immediately notified the FBI about his cousin's attempts to get him to pass on secret information to her. The FBI set up a sting operation and with the help of the White House staffer, was able to get enough evidence to arrest the Democrat staffer. Further investigation revealed that she had accepted lots of money from Saddam Hussein for payment of the secret information she had hoped to get. She was charged with espionage.

OK, so you're the editor of the newspaper: You know that the woman charged with espionage was working for a Democrat congressman and had worked on the staff of several other well-known Democrat Senators and Representatives. You also know that her second-cousin, the White House staffer, was responsible for reporting her to the FBI, as well as cooperating with their investigation in order to bring her to justice. What would your front page headline say?

Well, in spite of what every fair-minded individual would write, the headlines that America saw were: "Cousin of White House Aide Arrested, Charged With Espoinage", "White House Aide's Relative Charged With Spying For Saddam", or other such crap.
Even worse, only a few (less than five, if I remember correctly) papers actually pointed out the fact that this woman was working for a Democrat....and even then, that fact was at the tail of the story, usually buried on page 6 or worse. One paper I read even felt it necessary to mention that the woman's father was a Republican but didn't tell anyone that she was not only a Democrat, she was working in a Democrat congressman's office during the time that she was spying for Saddam!
Basically, the headlines and the following stories were written in such a way as to leave the reader with the impression that someone close to the White House had been one of Saddam's spys.

This is only one example; their are myriad more

__________________
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last." Winston Churchill

Okay, but did the Media portray the story in that manner because they have a liberal bias, or because it sounds more interesting that way?

The average person on the street is going to be more intrigued by espionage invovling high level White House officials than they would be by some random Democratic employee they've never heard of. I don't think this is a bias, I think this is twisting the story to make it more entertaining.

__________________
Yes, the little green fist up there is a symbol of Earth First! No, I'm not an eco-terrorist, nor do I agree with eco-terrorism...I just thought it looked cool.