Proof of a left-wing bias

If this is not proof of a left-wing bias in the media, I don't know what is.

Joe Lieberman goes to Iraq. John Murtha goes to Iraq.

Lieberman says things are going well.

Murtha says they are not.

Who got the most media coverage?

Murtha, that's who!

Check out the major online publications and see how many articles have been published about each person's remarks.

 

The left-wing bias is so pervasive in the media, that it's not even worth talking about anymore.

 

Nobody expected John Murtha to come back against the war. So, I think that when he did the story had more shock value.

 

Good point Miguel.


Abner

 

He voted against his own resolution, so you have to wonder what his motivations are.

 

I thouht I heard this but wasn't sure. I was typing a paper for FLET and had the t.v. on in the othe room. I thought I just heard wrong.

Yes, now we have to wonder about his motives.

 

While I agree that the national news media are clearly biased towards the left, I also agree with Miguel.

It's just a fact of modern journalism: controversy is more "newsworthy" than agreement. You can have a hundred people saying 'I agree', and it isn't news. But when somebody finally says 'I disagree', that's news.

To some extent it's just human nature. People like controversy. We see it right here on Degreeinfo. The threads where arguments are taking place are the threads that get all the action.

And it's also the way that journalism schools work. J-schools teach their students the "muckraker ideal". A reporter's highest calling, the thing that defines "serious investigative journalism", is uncovering evil. So if discovering dirt is what makes successful careers, then reporters are going to be seeing dirt everywhere.

Finally, journalists are a tight little world. That's especially true of those with editorial power in the national media. These people all know each other. They socialize at the same Manhattan parties. And they all carefully watch to see what the others are doing.

So the media often behave like a herd. Something becomes a story because the rest of the media is running it. Everybody follows everybody else and features the same headlines. So when the journalistic mood changes, it changes for all of the media and it changes all at once.

 

I don't know. If Jesus came back today and walked on water, the NYT would have a front page banner headline

• JESUS CAN'T SWIM!

 

I remember years back getting irate at a local journalist for an article that made welfare recipients out to be crooks. There was someone who had won a lottery and kept collecting welfare.

So, I sent an email telling her that I thought she might want to consider writing a piece on welfare recipients who didn't jig the system.

She phoned me back and explained that "nobody" wanted to read about honest people who were down on their luck. They wanted to hear about crooks and scamsters on the dole.

I asked her why it was she thought that's what they wanted to read about. Had people reading her paper told her that? After all, my email told her that maybe some subscribers to the paper didn't just want to read about such people.

She was silent for a little bit after I put it that way, and then replied, "That's what sells papers." (Do they learn this phrase in journalism school??)

So, I said, "Well, that's also what cancels subscriptions."

When I wrote in, canceling my subscription, I was sure to cite the name, time of call, and article that sold one less paper.

(Addendum -- don't think I've read that paper since.)

 

Hi Bruce:


From what I undestand, the resolution was introduced by a Republican (don't remeber his name) in order to force a vote by the Democrats. However, the bill/resolution was very contrary to what Murtha suggested. I believe he did state he wanted the troops to pull out, however, he also had a gradual timetable in order to do this (per C-span). The only part that got to the maintsream media was "Murtha wants immediate pull out of Iraq".

Thus, the dems voted against the resolution because the Reps wrote it up (or at least changed it) so the resolution was worded "immediate pullout" with no additional addendums. I believe it was a tactical move on the part of reps. Most level headed Dems know you can't just pull out overnight without a reasonable gradual exit strategy. Many Republicans believe this as well.


Just my two centavos!!!


Take care my friend, gotta go finish painting the house trim, Yipeeeeeee!!!! Not!



Abner

 

A segment of the media leans towards the left, CNN. A segment of the media leans towards the Right, Fox.

I bet you never heard me critizing Fox, or Rush, or O'Reilly, et. all. That is because I have a remote control and switch the channel.

Are individual channels biased. YES! Is the media as an industry balanced. I think it is.

 

By the way, too bad "Crossfire" went off the air. It was one of two news shows that I considered to be fairly unbiased. "The McLaughlin" Group being the other.

 

While i agree with you about TV media, you left out MSNBC, CBS, NBC, ABC, and Certainly PBS as being the the left wing camp. Talk Radio is owned by the right wing completly...It seems to me the "Air America" has been a ratings disaster...Anyone got a theory why left wing radio has never seemed to fly. I always JOKED that most of the talk radio audience was in the workforce so they were therefor bias conservative since liberals where at home watchin tv....No flame please...just alittle joke....


Did anyone see the HBO documentary on Air America, I understand it did not make them look good??I missed it..would love details..

 

That's always been my theory too. No joke.

 

What Bill and Quinn said. And everybody else is being civil, too. Cool!

 

I think the media take pot shots at whoever is in power. Back in the Clinton days, it sure seemed like there was a right wing bias in the media. We heard nothing but news about one Ken Starr investigation after another. Liberals were screaming, "is this really news?" Conservatives were responding, "hell yes."

Different time, but same argument, it's just the shoes are on different feet this time.

Depends on your perspective, I think.

 

I can go along with this to a point. More newspapers endorsed Reagan in '80 than Carter.

I still think there is a left-winged media bias, however, more than a right-winged bias.

 

I think that the idea that there is a left wing bias has definatly been foster by the right, BUT when 70% of journalist identify themselves as liberal that definatly adds to my perception of the state of journalism. You take a liberal and a conservative, show them the same situation, and they will see two different things. If a liberal is reporting the information he is more likely, IMHO, to present it as he saw it, naturally. Also, the fact that 10-15% (Cant remember) identified themselves as moderates also add to the slant. Most people, IMHO, who call themselves moderates are really more liberal than conservative..support abortion and gay marriage, drug law reform, and some social activism. I think "Independents" are the real force. They are people like me and most of the people here who reconize the fact that most politicians are lying sack of dung and can only be trusted to do what best for themselves...once you get past that there is a certain humor factor to it all....

 

Yeah, but so did dem Sen.McArthy who just took the great dirt nap...>He said anyone was better than Carter...Then when he ran against Mondale it was the biggest electoral victory since G.Washington.


It really is all about presentation. Even during clinton when they were covering the impeachment, they did not go after him with the same vigor as the "Bush Lied" mantra now. I mean, regardless of what the case was about, purgery is pretty serious. I think i read somewere there were something like 187 people i jail for comminting purgery about a sexual encounter...

Just a though...

 

all this talk about "pulling out early"

sounds like we are back in the Clinton administration


what did President Clinton due when the abortion bill landed on
his desk in the Oval Office?








He Paid it