Is there Bias in the Media?

[MDM4AU 336]

Everybody today talking about John Kerry`s botched joke. Everybody, that is, except the people at "The New York Times". "The Times" did report the story yesterday, but if you wanted to know exactly what Kerry said, it wasn`t on the front page. It wasn`t even on page two, page three, page four, page 17. No, no, no. "The New York Times" reported John Kerry`s insulting gaffe on page 18.

So if you`re a "Times" reader and you only had time to get through the first 17 pages yesterday, you would have missed what is arguably the biggest election story of the week.

Here`s the point tonight. Americans are not just sick of politics and politicians. We`re sick of the media distorting the truth. There is no such thing as objective journalism, and Americans are finally becoming fully aware of it.

Here`s how I got there. There is a new study out from the nonpartisan Center for Media and Public Affairs. It analyzes stories about the elections during the seven weeks since Labor Day on the evening newscast on the three broadcast networks.

The report said that 77 percent of on-air stories about Democrats were positive; 88 percent of the references to the Republicans, negative. How is that even possible? Are there really that many rainbow and lollipop stories about Democrats? Are all Republicans somehow or another all homicidal maniacs?

The answer, I believe, is in the makeup of the media. Most -- what a surprise -- of the media, comprised of liberals.

Mark Halperin, he`s a frequent guest on this show. He says that 70 percent of his colleagues at ABC-TV are liberal. Now, I`m not suggesting that there`s secret, undercover covert meetings in newsrooms, calling each other, "This is how we destroy George Bush." That is not going on.

But they are human beings. Yes, journalists, you are human. And inadvertently or not, they tend to see things through their own prism. It is human nature to interpret things differently, all through our own points of view. Liberals will approach a story with a subconscious skepticism of conservatives and vice versa, I would imagine.

Can you -- can you even begin to imagine how long the reign of conservatives would be in this country if this they had this kind of control over the media? What do you think -- what do you think the Iraqi poll numbers would look like if the media were not biased one way or another, just actually fair?

Now, because of the makeup of newsrooms, the media, I think just -- they feed on each other, and opinion becomes fact. They look to fill the blanks of the story of which they already know the outcome.

But Americans, thank goodness, are finally on to it. And I believe they are starving for the truth. The media keeps insisting that they`re impartial; they`re fair; they`re balanced! That`s not true.

You know what? I`m not talking about the Al Frankens or the Rush Limbaughs of the world. They admit that they`re liberal or conservative. They remind their audiences daily that they`re approaching a story with an opinion. You know it.

The real danger lies beneath the surface, where it`s all quiet and dark. Opinion cloaked as journalism.

How is it that two news journalism like FOX and CNN can report the day`s news completely differently? Regarding the John Kerry thing, FOX was running news alerts, like, every two minutes. CNN -- not so much. Why? Because whether they want to admit it or not, journalists are not gods; they`re human beings with a point of view.

So here`s what I know tonight. While objectivity might be an endangered species, thank heavens the truth is not. And here it is -- in a nutshell. The war in Iraq is going poorly. The economy is in great shape. Illegal immigration is a serious problem. Extremist Muslims are trying to kill us.

Jessica Alba is hot. That is the truth.

Republicans or Democrats, they don`t own the truth. You know where the truth belongs? To you, to me, to everybody. The media doesn`t think so. And that`s why the ratings on all of the networks are down. Yet, the ratings for this show are up substantially.

People aren`t watching because of my striking good looks, although I am pretty handsome. It`s because I`m saying every night, "Look, I`m a conservative. Here`s what I think. This is the way I view the news." I`m not trying to fool anyone, and I wish the rest of the media would catch onto that.

I also know that the media is in complete denial. They say that they`re objective. They`re not. It may be unintentional, but every single story is slanted. It`s up to you to determine the truth from opinion, to take source and source and compare them.

This show, for instance, is opinion. Know that going in.

Here`s what I don`t know. I don`t know how much media bias can affect the outcome of this election. Can you do any more damage to the truth than that which has already been done?

Robert Lichter, he is the president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, the nonpartisan organization that has conducted this survey that I was just telling you about.

Robert, is there any such thing as objective journalism?

ROBERT LICHTER, PRESIDENT, CENTER FOR MEDIA AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Well, in the sense that nobody`s god-like and objective, but let`s say there`s journalism that tries to be dispassionate and factual, and there`s journalism that tries to be more subjective and interpretive. And to the degree that your journalism is more interpretive to begin with, then your perspective is going to get in the story more.

BECK: But you know what? It is -- it is -- it is the collective. Again, I really don`t think -- I think journalists, they try to do the right thing, you know, just like I try to do the right thing. But I`ll come at something with a different perspective.

And then, if you have these newsrooms, like you know, Mark Halperin said, 70 percent of ABC News is liberal. It just is slanted because that`s the way everybody thinks. You want affirmative action. Help put in some conservatives in the newsrooms.

LICHTER: I think you`re right, that what you need is diversity of opinion and diversity of intellectual orientation, because that`s what your audience has. You have to represent your audience and the points-of-view that you hear so that you can respect those points of view in the newscast.

BECK: Hang on a second. Because the truth is not about a point of view. But if -- but all of us, as humans, we come in with a point of view. We think -- you know, because of our experiences, we think we know what it is. And so it`s not really about balancing the point of view, as much as it is having two people who look at the same thing differently say, "OK, this is what it is." Isn`t it?

I mean, I could stand right next to you and watch -- witness a car accident. And you and I are going to tell different stories.

LICHTER: You know, it`s absolutely true. It is also true, to give journalists some benefit of the doubt, that there is training to say, "Don`t just look at this like an ordinary person. Try to be professional and give some credit to the other side that believes differently from the way you do."

BECK: OK. Now let me -- let me flip that around. You want to talk about training. I believe one of the problems in our -- in our journalistic educational systems is that these journalists believe and are trained to be the watchdogs.

And they all want to be, you know, Woodward or Bernstein. And they are so busy -- in our current state, they are so busy looking for the bad guy in our own government that they`re missing the bad guy outside of our own country. Do you think that plays a role at all?

LICHTER: There`s certainly been a big change in the culture of journalism over the last 40 years since the days of Woodward and Bernstein. They have really influenced the way that journalists look at what they should be doing. As you say, more likely to think they should be watchdogs, the public`s tribunes, out there to get insight underneath, expose the dark secret, as opposed to just telling people basically what the facts are and letting them decide for themselves.

BECK: Is -- is the -- and I tried to explain this, as I`ve done talk radio for a while. I`ve tried to explain this. People say, "Oh, you`re not reporting the news." I never pretend I`m a journalist. That`s not what I do.

People don`t understand the difference between the opinion page, the editorial section, and the news section. The general public doesn`t -- you know, they don`t understand the difference between that. And I think the line is being blurred with journalism, as well.

Are we getting worse or better?

LICHTER: Well, I think that`s getting worse, because journalists have become personalities. I mean, you can write a news story and then go on a talk show to discuss the news in which you take opinions. There are columns. Some reporters will write a column and also a news story.

So as reporters have become celebrities to some degree...

BECK: Sure.

LICHTER: ... I think it blurs the line for the public as to anybody who presents the information is doing.

BECK: Right. Robert, thank you very much. I appreciate all of your time. And the poll, it was fascinating.

Transcript from CNN Headline News - The Glenn Beck Program

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Everybody today talking about John Kerry`s botched joke. Everybody, that is, except the people at "The New York Times". "The Times" did report the story yesterday, but if you wanted to know exactly what Kerry said, it wasn`t on the front page. It wasn`t even on page two, page three, page four, page 17. No, no, no. "The New York Times" reported John Kerry`s insulting gaffe on page 18.

So if you`re a "Times" reader and you only had time to get through the first 17 pages yesterday, you would have missed what is arguably the biggest election story of the week.

Anyone who thinks that nonstory was the biggest story of the week is biased, but not liberal. Beck's on CNN, folks. And those of you on the right are quoting him all the time as if you worship the guy.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Everybody today talking about John Kerry`s botched joke. Everybody, that is, except the people at "The New York Times". "The Times" did report the story yesterday, but if you wanted to know exactly what Kerry said, it wasn`t on the front page. It wasn`t even on page two, page three, page four, page 17. No, no, no. "The New York Times" reported John Kerry`s insulting gaffe on page 18.

So if you`re a "Times" reader and you only had time to get through the first 17 pages yesterday, you would have missed what is arguably the biggest election story of the week.

Anyone who thinks that nonstory was the biggest story of the week is biased, but not liberal. Beck's on CNN, folks. And those of you on the right are quoting him all the time as if you worship the guy.

Glenn Beck only got on CNN because Fox was kicking their teeth in the ratings. At one point CNN was getting less than 225K viewers during the later Clinton years. Fox is the leading cable news channel in America and they are still not even on in large parts of the country. Besides Beck has benn on just so long there. It is funny to see the Libs try and explain that there people just arent into radio and then see that they really arent into Cable news either it seems.

As far as Kerry idiotic comments, have you seen either Kerry or Pelosi or Kennedy the last few weeks? NNNOOO! and you wont, the Dems have to hide their real identity or they might lose the election. I bet that it wont be near as bad as we have been lead to believe now. Kerry really fired up the Rep base with his attacks on the US military. Got to love the boys in green bitch slapping him all over the Internet now too.

[MDM4AU 336]

Everybody today talking about John Kerry`s botched joke. Everybody, that is, except the people at "The New York Times". "The Times" did report the story yesterday, but if you wanted to know exactly what Kerry said, it wasn`t on the front page. It wasn`t even on page two, page three, page four, page 17. No, no, no. "The New York Times" reported John Kerry`s insulting gaffe on page 18.

So if you`re a "Times" reader and you only had time to get through the first 17 pages yesterday, you would have missed what is arguably the biggest election story of the week.

Anyone who thinks that nonstory was the biggest story of the week is biased, but not liberal. Beck's on CNN, folks. And those of you on the right are quoting him all the time as if you worship the guy.

Nice try, Tex. You totally missed the point here.

First of all, no one said BIAS is only liberal thing. Secondly, I quote Beck to see what others think of his opinion - to see if there is any discussion on the matter. Most of the time no one on this board has anything to say about it. Many times I agree with what he is saying. But, I don't always agree with him. And if quoting him makes me a Beck worshiper, then what does that make all of you who quote directly from the DNC talking points and play book everyday? As far as Beck being on CNN, folks - Beck was hired on at CNN in May because FOX News was kicking their a$$ in ratings along with all the other major TV news sources. But that isn't the point, and you know it.

You are delusional if you don't think The Kerry Incident wasn't the biggest ELECTION STORY of the week. Whether you thought it was a botched joke or his true feelings, it was the BIGGEST thing nationally going on in the elections. Sort of tells you how pathetic our politics are.

Once you get past the NYT part of the transcript - the part that is simply Beck's opinion - there is a discussion about media bias and a study that seems to prove that case. But, like a good DNC Soldier reading from the DNC Bible...er...Playbook, you try to deflect the attention to a conservative on CNN in a lame attempt to do...actually... I don't know what you were trying to do except avoid the actual point of the segment because that doesn't help your cause.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Everybody today talking about John Kerry`s botched joke. Everybody, that is, except the people at "The New York Times". "The Times" did report the story yesterday, but if you wanted to know exactly what Kerry said, it wasn`t on the front page. It wasn`t even on page two, page three, page four, page 17. No, no, no. "The New York Times" reported John Kerry`s insulting gaffe on page 18.

So if you`re a "Times" reader and you only had time to get through the first 17 pages yesterday, you would have missed what is arguably the biggest election story of the week.

Anyone who thinks that nonstory was the biggest story of the week is biased, but not liberal. Beck's on CNN, folks. And those of you on the right are quoting him all the time as if you worship the guy.

Glenn Beck only got on CNN because Fox was kicking their teeth in the ratings. At one point CNN was getting less than 225K viewers during the later Clinton years. Fox is the leading cable news channel in America and they are still not even on in large parts of the country. Besides Beck has benn on just so long there. It is funny to see the Libs try and explain that there people just arent into radio and then see that they really arent into Cable news either it seems.

As far as Kerry idiotic comments, have you seen either Kerry or Pelosi or Kennedy the last few weeks? NNNOOO! and you wont, the Dems have to hide their real identity or they might lose the election. I bet that it wont near as bad as we have been lead to believe now. Kerry really fired up the Rep base with his attacks on the US military. Got to love the boys in green bitch slapping him all over the Internet now too.

Where is Fox not on?

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Everybody today talking about John Kerry`s botched joke. Everybody, that is, except the people at "The New York Times". "The Times" did report the story yesterday, but if you wanted to know exactly what Kerry said, it wasn`t on the front page. It wasn`t even on page two, page three, page four, page 17. No, no, no. "The New York Times" reported John Kerry`s insulting gaffe on page 18.

So if you`re a "Times" reader and you only had time to get through the first 17 pages yesterday, you would have missed what is arguably the biggest election story of the week.

Anyone who thinks that nonstory was the biggest story of the week is biased, but not liberal. Beck's on CNN, folks. And those of you on the right are quoting him all the time as if you worship the guy.

Nice try, Tex. You totally missed the point here.

First of all, no one said BIAS is only liberal thing. Secondly, I quote Beck to see what others think of his opinion - to see if there is any discussion on the matter. Most of the time no one on this board has anything to say about it. Many times I agree with what he is saying. But, I don't always agree with him. And if quoting him makes me a Beck worshiper, then what does that make all of you who quote directly from the DNC talking points and play book everyday? As far as Beck being on CNN, folks - Beck was hired on at CNN in May because FOX News was kicking their a$$ in ratings along with all the other major TV news sources. But that isn't the point, and you know it.

You are delusional if you don't think The Kerry Incident wasn't the biggest ELECTION STORY of the week. Whether you thought it was a botched joke or his true feelings, it was the BIGGEST thing nationally going on in the elections. Sort of tells you how pathetic our politics are.

Once you get past the NYT part of the transcript - the part that is simply Beck's opinion - there is a discussion about media bias and a study that seems to prove that case. But, like a good DNC Soldier reading from the DNC Bible...er...Playbook, you try to deflect the attention to a conservative on CNN in a lame attempt to do...actually... I don't know what you were trying to do except avoid the actual point of the segment because that doesn't help your cause.

You and your colleagues have your standard reply: "all you do is quote DNC talking points". I haven't visited the DNC website in about 2 years, and never spend much time there. I don't listen to Air America, etc. etc. You guys, on the other hand, frequently cite the same biased sources and then whine about bias. There is rarely an original thought by a so-called conservative on this board, just regurgitated pablum. You never call folks on that, though.

[MDM4AU 336]

You and your colleagues have your standard reply: "all you do is quote DNC talking points". I haven't visited the DNC website in about 2 years, and never spend much time there. I don't listen to Air America, etc. etc. You guys, on the other hand, frequently cite the same biased sources and then whine about bias. There is rarely an original thought by a so-called conservative on this board, just regurgitated pablum. You never call folks on that, though.

Standard replies? You don't think you have standard replies? What a freaking joke!

Show me where I have cited "the same biased sources" as indisputable fact? You say I whine about bias, but here I have posted the findings of the Center for Media and Public Affairs that seem to say there is a bias in the media.

I haven't called anyone on the "regurgitated pablum" because you seem to have that handled quite well. What you conveniently overlook is that you don't see me giving "atta-boys" to all the posts either. But in your mind, because I am a conservative, I, A.) Don't have an original thought and B.) Agree with every right-winger on here if I don't reply in opposition to their posts. I could say the same thing about you never calling a spade a spade with the Dems until called on it. That's just plain stupid! I called you out in this instance because you totally avoided the "meat" of the post and went on the defensive and tried to deflect. Are you so vain that you think everytime someone with a different opinion than you is aiming their post at you and they are calling you on something?

The part about the DNC Talking points was to make a point that, again, you obviously missed. You tried to equal my posting of Beck comments as Idol Worship, yet you always seem to have the same exact opinion (nearly verbatim) as the DNC mouthpieces that hit the airwaves to spin a story. To act like every opinion you espouse on this board was conceived and born all by your little lonesome is laughable at best.

Lastly, it appears that you know nothing about Glenn Beck (except that he is a conservative) and that you didn't read the whole transcript.

Don't like that a study seems to prove bias in the media? Do your own to debunk it.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

You and your colleagues have your standard reply: "all you do is quote DNC talking points". I haven't visited the DNC website in about 2 years, and never spend much time there. I don't listen to Air America, etc. etc. You guys, on the other hand, frequently cite the same biased sources and then whine about bias. There is rarely an original thought by a so-called conservative on this board, just regurgitated pablum. You never call folks on that, though.

Standard replies? You don't think you have standard replies? What a freaking joke!

Show me where I have sited "the same biased sources" as indisputable fact? You say I whine about bias, but here I have posted the findings of the Center for Media and Public Affairs that seem to say there is a bias in the media.

I haven't called anyone on the "regurgitated pablum" because you seem to have that handled quite well. What you conveniently overlook is that you don't see me giving "atta-boys" to all the posts either. But in your mind, because I am a conservative, I, A.) Don't have an original thought and B.) Agree with every right-winger on here if I don't reply in opposition to their posts. I could say the same thing about you never calling a spade a spade with the Dems until called on it. That's just plain stupid! I called you out in this instance because you totally avoided the "meat" of the post and went on the defensive and tried to deflect. Are you so vain that you think everytime someone with a different opinion than you is aiming their post at you and they are calling you on something?

The part about the DNC Talking points was to make a point that, again, you obviously missed. You tried to equal my posting of Beck comments as Idol Worship, yet you always seem to have the same exact opinion (nearly verbatim) as the DNC mouthpieces that hit the airwaves to spin a story. To act like every opinion you espouse on this board was conceived and born all by your little lonesome is laughable at best.

Lastly, it appears that you know nothing about Glenn Beck (except that he is a conservative) and that you didn't read the whole transcript.

Don't like that a study seems to prove bias in the media? Do your own to debunk it.

"The liberal media" is one of the foremost Repug talking points. If you really are interested in a well documented contrary view, you can find it here:

http://www.amazon.com/Liberal-Media-Truth-...TF8&s=books

In 2004, there were more "negative" stories on Bush than Kerry, but he was a sitting President with a two wars not going to plan so there wasn't much surprise there. In 2000 there were more "negative" stories on Gore than Bush. It's been widely reported that many in the media just plain liked Bush more than Gore at the time. Also, many of the reporters following Gore didn't like him. I believe the book referenced in your thread by Halperin makes that clear.

If the Election Story of the Week is determined by the print media, then no, Kerry's comments were not it. So the NYTs has different views on news than Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Beck. Newsflash. If it is determined by cable "news" shows watched by a small percentage of Americans or conservative talk radio, one would conclude that it was.

My own view from following political media pretty closely over the years is that the majority of those in the major media reside in major East Coast cities, and like most around them, are more socially liberal than most folks in the "Heartland" on issues like abortion, gay rights, sexual mores, etc. I don't think most of them understand rural and small town America. I don't think that most of them are particulary partisan, however. They want big stories. They want controversy. They couldn't get enough Monica Lewinsky and loved covering an impeachment trial. The biggest bias I see in the MSM is that they are woefully ignorant about the things they cover.

[MDM4AU 336]

My own view from following political media pretty closely over the years is that the majority of those in the major media reside in major East Coast cities, and like most around them, are more socially liberal than most folks in the "Heartland" on issues like abortion, gay rights, sexual mores, etc. I don't think most of them understand rural and small town America. I don't think that most of them are particulary partisan, however. They want big stories. They want controversy. They couldn't get enough Monica Lewinsky and loved covering an impeachment trial. The biggest bias I see in the MSM is that they are woefully ignorant about the things they cover.

I don't totally disagree with you here. This very point is somewhat discussed in the transcript as well. As far as the media being partisan, I am not saying it is this evil plan by those running the media. I have always believed this and agreed with Beck:

"Now, I`m not suggesting that there`s secret, undercover covert meetings in newsrooms, calling each other, "This is how we destroy George Bush." That is not going on."

The media bias is a "human" thing. "...journalists are not gods; they`re human beings with a point of view...

But they are human beings. Yes, journalists, you are human. And inadvertently or not, they tend to see things through their own prism. It is human nature to interpret things differently, all through our own points of view. Liberals will approach a story with a subconscious skepticism of conservatives and vice versa, I would imagine."

I saw this actual segment and keyed on the "i would imagine" part at the end. I noted that that was a remark from a conservative. There is no imagine to it. If journalists are human, than both tend to have a subconscious skepticism, no question about it.

I wholeheartedly agree that the media are ignorant about what they cover. Becasue of the sensationalism they long for, they miss the stories that are really important or what is truley important about the topic. And Washington is the same way. Both sides! Whether tthey will admit it or not.