Media Liberal?

[Auburn85 432]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147839,00.html

The prevailing wisdom is that the nation's largest city newspapers are liberal in their editorial viewpoint, and, overwhelmingly, that is true. And here's the proof:

We analyzed the 10 highest circulation local papers, concentrating on their op-ed columnists, and it breaks down this way.

The New York Times has four liberal columnists, one conservative. The L.A. Times has three liberals, one conservative. The New York Daily News has five liberals, one conservative. The Washington Post has an astounding 11 liberal columnists and four conservatives. The New York Post is the opposite, zero liberals and 10 conservatives. The Chicago Tribune has six liberals, just one conservative. The Houston Chronicle has two liberals, no conservatives. The Boston Globe pays four liberals to write on the op- ed page, one conservative. And The Atlanta Journal-Constitution has three liberals, no conservatives.

[Tigermike 3,028]

It does not bother me that they are liberal, what bothers me is that they want to portray themselves an unbiased. It's almost as if they are saying "we as liberals can report things accurately and without bias but conservatives can not". They are also saying that we are too stupid to understand and see the bias they are pushing off as "mere reporting".

I see some of the same "unbiased" reporting in the state papers and TV stations with AU & UofA. They will not admit a bias, but it is there and apparent at times.

[Auburn85 432]

It does not bother me that they are liberal, what bothers me is that they want to portray themselves an unbiased.  It's almost as if they are saying "we as liberals can report things accurately and without bias but conservatives can not".  They are also saying that we are too stupid to understand and see the bias they are pushing off as "mere reporting".

I see some of the same "unbiased" reporting in the state papers and TV stations with AU & UofA.  They will not admit a bias, but it is there and apparent at times.

147354[/snapback]

Kind of like how some think FAUX NEWS is the most biased

[Tigermike 3,028]

The difference is that Fox News does not try to hide their conservative leanings behind the lie of being unbiased reporting. Unlike the major networks and most major papers.

[mcgufcm 4,096]

oh so they changed the slogan to: real news, conservative and biased? or did i miss that?

[Auburn85 432]

Kerry didn't mind calling out FOX because they made the campaign for him difficult to win

I mean he went from the debates to aying you see all of this in the newspapers and tv and then he calls FOX out as hurting his campaign

[mcgufcm 4,096]

first, i love that the author uses a completely scientific means of determining liberal and conservative. the use of that word as such a concrete thing just makes me laugh. so this article has to be taken with a grain of salt.

i agree, though, that most northeastern papers are "left-leaning" (mainly b/c that's who buys the papers and they are running a business), but to say fox news doesn't try to conceal its bias is crap. "real news: fair and balanced" the slogan refutes the claim that they don't try to hid their conservative undertones. so yeah, there are "conservative" news sources and "liberal" news sources. is this earth shaking news to any of us?

[TrueBlue72 0]

FOX news only appears to be conservative because of what you have to compare it to!!! The newspapers and other networks are SO LIBERAL and have indoctrinated us to accept it as unbiased to the point that unbiased LOOKS to have a conservative bias. I have seen many articles on FOX that are uncomplimentary toward conservatives and the Republican party. Any day, you can find such an article.

Watch the alphabet networks and I dare you to find an article critical of the demoncrats other than for their lack of ability to win an election.

[Auburn85 432]

FOX news only appears to be conservative because of what you have to compare it to!!!  The newspapers and other networks are SO LIBERAL and have indoctrinated us to accept it as unbiased to the point that unbiased LOOKS to have a conservative bias.  I have seen many articles on FOX that are uncomplimentary toward conservatives and the Republican party.  Any day, you can find such an article. 

Watch the alphabet networks and I dare you to find an article critical of the demoncrats other than for their lack of ability to win an election.

147726[/snapback]

O Reilly doesn't kiss Bush's butt. He has been extremely critical of the illegal immigrant issue and the border. Also, about the tremendous spending in the budget.

[Auburn85 432]

Howard Dean has said on numerous occasions that he will not come on FOX News to do an interview

[mcgufcm 4,096]

o'reilly is a conservative, a cartoon character, and an a-hole. i'd be willing to bet he straight line votes based on party. he's fox's version of jon stewart (without the laughs). he brings guests on to interupt them. i'm not even famous, but if bill wanted to invite me on the show for my 15 minutes of fame, i'd tell him to shove it. the only guy on fox as hateable as o'reilly is cavuto. i hate cavuto.

oh and i wouldn't call this flattering:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/17/...ance/index.html

"Dean's chairmanship, thought extremely unlikely when he first indicated his availability three months ago, is itself testimony to his party's aimlessness.

Just as no power broker selected the former Vermont governor as DNC chairman, none is charting a strategy for regaining power. The mindless course leading to Dean's election by acclamation reflects a party adrift, its senior leaders mired in unreality.

Just how unrealistic they are was demonstrated last weekend on Fox News Sunday by Sen. Joseph Biden, ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee.

He contended "no party chairman's ever made a bit of difference" in determining policy. Would Dean then have any policy role at all? "Absolutely not," Biden replied. He added that "we'll see whether or not" Dean effectively improves party organization, "but he's not going to have a policy role, and he's stated that."

Biden is a six-term senator, but he fails history. Robert S. Strauss did not impose a heavy hand in his chairmanship (1972-77), but deftly influenced policy. I observed him at the 1974 mid-term party convention in Kansas City moderating his party on racial quotas."

that's from cnn.com today

[TexasTiger 12,876]

o'reilly is a conservative, a cartoon character, and an a-hole. i'd be willing to bet he straight line votes based on party. he's fox's version of jon stewart (without the laughs). he brings guests on to interupt them. i'm not even famous, but if bill wanted to invite me on the show for my 15 minutes of fame, i'd tell him to shove it. the only guy on fox as hateable as o'reilly is cavuto. i hate cavuto.

147759[/snapback]

Ever seen Hannity?

[DKW 86 7,424]

o'reilly is a conservative, a cartoon character, and an a-hole. i'd be willing to bet he straight line votes based on party. he's fox's version of jon stewart (without the laughs). he brings guests on to interupt them. i'm not even famous, but if bill wanted to invite me on the show for my 15 minutes of fame, i'd tell him to shove it. the only guy on fox as hateable as o'reilly is cavuto. i hate cavuto.

147759[/snapback]

Ever seen Hannity?

147768[/snapback]

Ever seen/heard Garofalo, Franken, Baldwin, Streisand, ad nauseum?

Cavuto? You guys have a problem with that harmless little fuzzball?

Hannity is part of Hannity/Colmes. I may not like Colmes but I do like the intellectual balance on H/C. Fair debate is a good thing. On CNN, ABC, CBS, etc. What you get is 'usually' 3 or 4 Libs to 1 Conservative. Crossfire got to be an over produced joke. 'Real Time' with Maher is just a show I would love to be on. I would pound the aforementioned racial slur tossing-woman beating story on his head.

[WarTim 3,456]

Just a FACT....Fox News has MORE "liberal" guests than Conservative.

I wonder IF nbc-cbs-abc could say that they have more Conservative "guest"?

[mcgufcm 4,096]

not a fact at all. fox does NOT have more liberal guests than conservative.

and tt i find a lot of people hateable on that station. hannity is another. the woman who talks out the side of her face is another. but there is something about neil cavuto's smug i'm-not-important-but-i'm-going-to-act-like-i-am delivery that just makes me ill. his is the first name i always think of when i try and decide who i would punch on tv. number one. kobe's up there. o'reilly's up there. some days i think anderson cooper deserves to be on the list. bill maher doesn't always come to mind but when he does, he's up there.

[WarTim 3,456]

not a fact at all. fox does NOT have more liberal guests than conservative.

and tt i find a lot of people hateable on that station. hannity is another. the woman who talks out the side of her face is another. but there is something about neil cavuto's smug i'm-not-important-but-i'm-going-to-act-like-i-am delivery that just makes me ill. his is the first name i always think of when i try and decide who i would punch on tv. number one. kobe's up there. o'reilly's up there. some days i think anderson cooper deserves to be on the list. bill maher doesn't always come to mind but when he does, he's up there.

147880[/snapback]

Sorry to burst your bubble, BUT, Yes....IT IS A FACT ! ! !

[mcgufcm 4,096]

yeah, you said it so it must be. don't know what i was thinkin.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

Ordinarily, revelations that a former male prostitute, using an alias (Jeff Gannon) and working for a phony news organization, was ushered into the White House -- without undergoing a full-blown security background check -- in order to pose softball questions to administration officials would qualify as news by any recent Beltway standard. Yet as of Thursday, ABC News, which produces "Good Morning America," "World News Tonight With Peter Jennings," "Nightline," "This Week," "20/20" and "Primetime Live," has not reported one word about the three-week-running scandal. Neither has CBS News ("The Early Show," "The CBS Evening News," "60 Minutes," "60 Minutes Wednesday" and "Face the Nation"). NBC and its entire family of morning, evening and weekend news programs have addressed the story only three times. Asked about the lack of coverage, a spokesperson for ABC did not return calls seeking comment, while a CBS spokeswoman said executives were unavailable to discuss the network's coverage [...]

Meanwhile on the newsstands, through Thursday, there had been no meaningful coverage in USA Today or in the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Detroit Free Press, Cleveland Plain Dealer, San Francisco Chronicle, Indianapolis Star, Denver Post, Oakland Tribune and Philadelphia Inquirer, to name a few that have effectively boycotted the White House press office scandal. Leo Wolinsky, deputy managing editor of the Los Angeles Times, says the Times is running its first Guckert story on Friday, focusing on the guidelines for securing White House press passes [...]

As for the editorial pages, it's curious that the nation's five largest papers, all pillars of the media establishment (the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal and USA Today), have been silent on the Guckert saga -- especially when dailies in more out-of-the-way places such as Tulsa, Okla.; Bangor, Maine; Niagara Falls, N.Y.; Augusta County, Va.; and Pensacola, Fla., have all deemed the story troubling enough to require attention, as noted by Media Matters for America, a liberal advocacy group that first raised questions about Guckert and Talon News.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/02/...e/index_np.html

[Auburn85 432]

Ordinarily, revelations that a former male prostitute, using an alias (Jeff Gannon) and working for a phony news organization, was ushered into the White House -- without undergoing a full-blown security background check -- in order to pose softball questions to administration officials would qualify as news by any recent Beltway standard. Yet as of Thursday, ABC News, which produces "Good Morning America," "World News Tonight With Peter Jennings," "Nightline," "This Week," "20/20" and "Primetime Live," has not reported one word about the three-week-running scandal. Neither has CBS News ("The Early Show," "The CBS Evening News," "60 Minutes," "60 Minutes Wednesday" and "Face the Nation"). NBC and its entire family of morning, evening and weekend news programs have addressed the story only three times. Asked about the lack of coverage, a spokesperson for ABC did not return calls seeking comment, while a CBS spokeswoman said executives were unavailable to discuss the network's coverage [...]

Meanwhile on the newsstands, through Thursday, there had been no meaningful coverage in USA Today or in the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Detroit Free Press, Cleveland Plain Dealer, San Francisco Chronicle, Indianapolis Star, Denver Post, Oakland Tribune and Philadelphia Inquirer, to name a few that have effectively boycotted the White House press office scandal. Leo Wolinsky, deputy managing editor of the Los Angeles Times, says the Times is running its first Guckert story on Friday, focusing on the guidelines for securing White House press passes [...]

As for the editorial pages, it's curious that the nation's five largest papers, all pillars of the media establishment (the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal and USA Today), have been silent on the Guckert saga -- especially when dailies in more out-of-the-way places such as Tulsa, Okla.; Bangor, Maine; Niagara Falls, N.Y.; Augusta County, Va.; and Pensacola, Fla., have all deemed the story troubling enough to require attention, as noted by Media Matters for America, a liberal advocacy group that first raised questions about Guckert and Talon News.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/02/...e/index_np.html

148208[/snapback]

This Jeff Gannon guy is a joke. I don't fault him for changing his name, but he's put himself out there in the world of porn through domains.

As far as him being allowed to ask questions, I see no problem with it. Most journalists are allowed only 1 question, so it wasn't like he was preventing "the question" that would ultimately cause the president to resign.

CNN has talked about it. Anderson Cooper has talked about it on 360. Wolf Blitzer had him for an interview a couple of weeks ago.

MSNBC takled about him last night on both HARDBALL and COUNTDOWN with Keith Olberman. Olberman has talked about him quite frequently over the last week. He has used the Cambell Brown interview.

On FOX's The Big Story with John Gibson, a segment on him was done.

[Auburn85 432]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150117,00.html

first, the "Talking Points Memo." If you want a great example of spin, listen up. Vice Admiral Albert Church (search) has released his investigation of prisoner abuse by the American military. The headline in "The Washington Post" is "Abuse Review Exonerates Policy: Low-level Leaders and Confusion Blamed."

But the headline in "The New York Times" states: "Details of Afghan and Iraq Abuse Are Cited in Pentagon Report." It is not until the middle of the article that the "Times" gets around to the primary conclusion, "But the inquiry found that Pentagon officials and senior commanders were not directly responsible for the detainee abuses, and that there was no policy that approved mistreatment of detainees at prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

That is the headline of the report. And that was buried by "The New York Times." The paper did this because for more than a year it has implied the Bush administration and the military instituted and approved a policy of abuse.

News headline, May 16, 2004: "Rumsfeld and Aide, Backed Harsh Tactics, Article Says". Editorial headline, August 26, 2004: "Holding the Pentagon Accountable for Abu Ghraib." News headline, January 17, 2005: "High-ranking Officers May Face Prosecution in Iraqi Prisoner Abuse, Military Officials Say."

Well, today, "The New York Times" "buried the lead" because the conclusion of the Church report is the exact opposite of what the paper has been reporting. It's as simple as that.

Now "Talking Points" has said right from the jump that all American abuse of prisoners must be investigated and punished if proven. But we believe in the presumption of innocence. Prove it. Don't imply something is true without hard evidence.

"The New York Times" and other left leaning media don't like the war in Iraq, despise President Bush. Thus the reporting these operations do is designed to prop up their editorial viewpoint. That is spin! S-p-i-n. Everybody got it?

One more thing: There's a chance that Admiral Church didn't get the situation correct. There's a chance someone high up in the military at the Defense Department did condone or cover up abuse. That possibility exists. But responsible news organizations do not hype stories and headline innuendo on a possibility.

The crux of the Church report is that no one in the administration or at the Pentagon ordered anyone to be abused. "The New York Times," once again, buried the headline and went with more descriptions of alleged abuse. So you tell me, who is doing honest reporting on this issue?

Why can't they just report on what they know? Do they feel the people can't make a valid judgement on their own?

[Auburn85 432]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150476,00.html

Federal judges blocked the transfer of 13 suspected terrorists being held at Guantanamo Bay (search) after a left-wing group, The Center for Constitutional Rights, sued on their behalf, saying they might be tortured if they were sent home or to another Muslim country. Wait a minute. I thought they were being tortured at Guantanamo Bay! --That's what the Progressive press keeps telling us. Now they want to keep these guys at Gitmo? What's the deal?

Well, the deal is this, undermining the Bush administration's war on terror is priority number one for the progressives. On Saturday, for example, "The New York Times" ran another page one story telling the world the two Afghan prisoners were killed by American soldiers. And where did the "Times" get the information? From an investigation by the U.S. military, that's where. The Army has already charged one soldier with manslaughter. The Times played the story on page one, making a huge deal out of it.

"The Washington Post" put it on page 14 in a much smaller presentation. The only other organization to print the story was in France. --What a surprise...

Once again, there are going to be atrocities by American soldiers. They must be reported, but responsible journalists will report fairly.

And on that subject, a new study by the Project For Excellence in Journalism at Columbia University examined the Iraq war coverage. On cable news, it broke down like this: 38 percent of the stories FOX News ran were favorable to the war effort; 62 percent neutral, negative or not able to be classified. Over at CNN, 20 percent of the stories were positive; 80 percent neutral, negative or not classifiable. And at MSNBC, just 16 percent positive, 84 percent neutral, negative or not classifiable.

So once again, you can decide which network is fair and balanced. And by the way, the same study looked at election coverage: 250 stories in the media were examined. And 36 percent of the stories about President Bush were negative; 12 percent of the stories about John Kerry were negative.

So there is no question the majority of American news agencies tilt sharply left. And one of the few that doesn't, FOX News is demonized beyond belief. The latest tactic is using entertainment programs to smear us. Nice. --NBC by far the worst offender.

Finally, I guarantee you the Progressive media will not question the judge's ruling that terror suspects cannot be sent abroad. I guess the progressives want to give these guys condos on Miami Beach. The whole thing is just insane. No country could fight a terror war the way the far- Left envisions.