Is the "Media" Liberal

[Icerigger]

Going against the conventual wisdom I would like to offer the herictal
position that the "media" is conservative as opposed to liberal. I would
define "media" as any broadcast, publication, organization or prominate
personality dealing with current events or policy in a politcal context.

I do hear, mainly from my two local talk radio stations the term liberal
media at least 30 times a day, every day, uttered by coservatives to other
conservatives on conservative stations on conservative talkshows.

Who has more sources of political news or opinion? Liberals or Conservatives.

I thought I could start with list of prominate Conservative sources of "media"
and see if others can offset this with more liberal sources.

Publications

Washington Times
Wallstreet Journal
National Review
Weekly Standard
Human Events
Insight Magazine
American Spectator
Conservative Digest
American Legion Magazine

Radio Programs

Rush Limbaugh
G Gordon Liddy
Dr Laura
Michael Reagan
Oliver North
Michael Medved

Organizations

Accury in Media
Council of conservative Citizens
Focus on the Family
Christian Collition
American Enterprise Instutite
Concerned Women of America
CATO Institute
Heritage Foundation
Rutherford Institute
Fox News
Drudge Report
Eagle Forumn
Independant Women's Foroum
Judical Watch
NRA
Gun Owners of America
Hudson Institute
John Birch Society
ACLJ
World Net Daily
Jewsih World Review
700 Club
Landmark Legal Foundation

Prominate media conservatives

George Will
Janet Parshall
William Safire
Mona Cheron
William F Buckley
Tucker Carlson
Phillis Schafly
Fred Barnes
Elaine Donnelly
Paul Wyrick
Laura Ingram
Robert Novack
Mary Matilyn
Reed Irvine
Kate O'Beirne
John McGlocklin
Arianna Huffington
Bruce Fein
Pat Buchanon
Kathleen Parker
Tony Blankley
Paul Harvey
Peggy Noonan

I believe this is a good rundown of the conservative media that
conservatives claim is dominated by liberals.

[Chance the Gardener]

The smearing of the media as liberal is one of the greatest scams of American history. I like to think we'll one day wake up and realize it, but I'm skeptical. I'm always skeptical.

You raise a good point, Icerigger: there are plenty of prominent conservative commentators out there, but a marked dearth of moderates and liberals. George Stephanopoulos is one of the rare exceptions. If anyone can, I'd like to see a list of the prominent liberals in American media. Five getcha ten the list would be far shorter. The so-called "moderates" in the media are no breath of fresh air, either. Watch Paula Zahn or Tim Russert sometime. The softball questions they hurl toward all their guests are disgusting

If the media are so liberal, why the fascination with Bill Clinton's marital infidelities, but the flat-out ignoring of the marital infidelities of Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich and George Bush, Senior? Why do the media give so much air time to the old Starr scandals, even though Clinton's been out of office for over a year now—and there are plenty of fresh scandals out there for us. Why did the media hammer Clinton on the allegation that he'd tried marijuana, but left Bush Junior alone when he said he didn't want to talk about the allegation that he'd used cocaine?

Over 90% of the media outlets in the United States are owned by less than ten companies. Think about who owns NBC, ABC, CBS, your local newspaper... wouldn't you think there'd be a vested interest in pleasing the owners of the media outlets? Corporations have a tendency to be conservative, some of you may have noticed, so it's not much of a leap to link corporations and conservatives—and thus the media outlets that those corporations own.

I'd like to see evidence of the American media's liberal leanings. I just don't get how anyone can accuse them of it. Even during the 2000 presidential campaign, Al Gore went under much more scrutiny for every little misstatement he made, while Bush Junior got a free ride. Bush flat-out lied about his environmental record in Texas during the debates, f'Chrissakes! Shouldn't that count for something?

[Ned]

You have to hand it to the republicans for their media strategy. They have done an amazing job of getting extreme right opinion into the mainstream while simultaniously excoriating the media for being liberal. It is like an alternate reality when someone like Russert can be considered a moderate by anyone.

As I argued in another ongoing thread to be a left wing pundit you have to be moderate and nonthreatening. Stephanopolis is a sorry excuse for a liberal which is probably the only reason he is acceptable for television. There are a few others but most are centrists who the stations pawn off as liberals. I understand Carville is going to Crossfire which would be unprecidented if he were intelligable.

I have yet to see a study that even attempts to show real liberal bias which is almost proof it doesn't exist with the glut of right wing think tanks around these days. Instead they rely on studies of voting patterns without looking at actual views, seperating out political reporters or looking at editors. Or they go the way of Bias and present no real evidence at all. The Daily Howler is having fun with Goldberg lately, it is worth a look to see a partial analysis of his methodology (or lack thereof) and the inaccuracy of his simple factual claims.

The Windshield case thread is a pretty good example of how well conditioned republicans can be to see bias and how little evidence they need. Summerby had a pretty good example the other day what happens when they try to show it using actual data. Sullivan attempted to show just how bad the NY Times was by counting, among other things, the number of times right wing extremist was used as compared to left wing extremist. Right wing was used 4 or 5 times the amount left wing was demonstrating to his satisfaction that he had exposed a nest of nasty liberals. When Summerby applied the criteria to the Moonie Times he found they were even more liberal.

Gore certainly got savaged in the election which doesn't necessarily suggest a right wing press but it sure doesn't support the idea of a liberal press either. To me the biggest factor wasn't so much a political bias but a bias towards filling the page with utter garbage with an emphasis on what was easiest to report. No analysis, no fact checking, style over substance at every turn and letting the candidates write the stories. The Bush campaign had a lot of help from the right wing pundits but they clearly understood the press better than Gore's and were more successful at manipulating it.

[december]

Nobody disputes that the conservative media is conservative.

The real issue is:

Is the (supposedly unbiased) mainstream media tilted to the left? That would be CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, New York Times, etc.

Normally these stations promote or discuss a #1 best selling book. However, they have totally ignored "Bias" -- which is evidence of their bias.:p

[minty green]

NPR is pushing the definition of "mainstream," just due to its tiny audience. I'd also point out to the OP that the Liberal Media Bias ("LMB") is alleged to reside in the reporting of the news, not the commentary. Except, of course, for the much-hated New York Times editorial page. I'd agree that there is a clear conservative majority among the mainstream pundits. The question, to my mind, is whether there is any liberal bias on evening news and the front section of the newspaper, not whether there's a liberal bias on the Sunday morning talk shows and the editorial pages.

[RickJay]

I'm surprised people still buy into this "the media is liberal/conservative" silliness. Conservatives says it's too liberal, liberals say it's too conservative.

The media, at least in the U.S., is STRONGLY centrist, oxymoronic though that may be. The media's general position is to take the most non-controversial position possible and to adopt whatever stance will garner the least controversy. The mainstream media coverage for genuinely different political viewpoints, right or left, is almost nonexistent.

[David Simmons]

Originally posted by december
Nobody disputes that the conservative media is conservative.

The real issue is:

Is the (supposedly unbiased) mainstream media tilted to the left? That would be CBS, NBC, ABC, NPR, New York Times, etc.

Normally these stations promote or discuss a #1 best selling book. However, they have totally ignored "Bias" -- which is evidence of their bias.:p

Many of those named by Icerigger in his post do appear on the so-called liberal mainstream media.

[ElvisL1ves]

Arianna Huffington, judging by her Salon articles, decided to switch from the increasingly-crowded right side of the street to the left with the change of administration. Perhaps there's some value to reading her, since her views are untainted by principle and she is therefore free to be more objective. Or perhaps she's still just a ho who should be ignored.

It's necessary, btw, not to fall into the fallacy of the excluded middle (literally) used by many conservative commentators, both in the media and on this board. "Not conservative" is not synonymous with "liberal" - a plurality of Americans call themselves "moderate", and that term does not simply mean "confused" or "undecided yet".

[Guinastasia]

The media is biased to whatever earns them more ratings.

[december]

Originally posted by David Simmons


Many of those named by Icerigger in his post do appear on the so-called liberal mainstream media. Yes, several of them represent conservative POVs in main stream media.

BTW the listing of Wall Street Journal is only partly correct. The editorial page is indeed very conservative. However, the news page is not. In fact, most of those working on the news are liberals, who sometimes point out errors on the op-ed side of the house.

[lucwarm]

Of course this issue has come up many times on these boards.

I agree that the existence of a Rush Limbaugh show is not really relevant to the question of liberal media bias.

Anyway, one quick and dirty way to measure bias is to do a NEXIS type search for news articles that have phrases like "ultra-conservative" Then do a similar search for phrases like "ultra-liberal." I did this once, and, as I recall, use of phrases like "ultra-conservative" significantly outnumbered the use of phrases like "ultra-liberal."

[sqweels]

as I recall, use of phrases like "ultra-conservative" significantly outnumbered the use of phrases like "ultra-liberal."

Well, perhaps it's because ultra-conservatives significantly outnumber ultra-liberas. Or perhaps "ultra-liberal" is an oxymoron because to be "ultra" anything is to be un-libreral.

"LIberal bias" might be an oxymoron too, but before we go any further we should try to estsablish a definition of "liberal" that we can all agree on.

[zev_steinhardt]

The "liberal media" has been discussed before (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=32452) .

You may now resume your arguments.

Zev Steinhardt

[lucwarm]

Originally posted by sqweels


Well, perhaps it's because ultra-conservatives significantly outnumber ultra-liberas.

Well, I'm sure that in the minds of many liberals, ultra-conservatives outnumber ultra-liberals. And vice versa.

[Demosthenesian]

One thing to consider is whether the term ultra-liberal is used to describe the far left, as ultra-conservative is used to describe the far right. Frankly, that just doesn't seem to be the case. Usually "socialist" is trotted out when describing the far left, and if it isn't then something like "leftist" usually is. Considering the tendency of many to call themselves moderate and to tar their opponents with extremism, it wouldn't be overly surprising if left-wing ideologues were simply called "liberals". That term can often be damaging enough that the "ultra-" simply isn't necessary to get it across.

[Ned]

The far left doesn't get much attention in mainstream media so it wouldn't be surprising to get little notice. If you went by mainstream media you wouldn't have a clue what the WTO protests are all about. They are refered to by a variety of name such as radical leftists.

In any case, content analysis is simply not something that can be done quick and dirty and have results that are at all meaningful.

[Jackmannii]

Icerigger may be correct that there are more right-wing than left-wing commentators/alternate news sources available to consumers these days.

Certainly there's been an upsurge in largely right-wing talk programs and internet sources of "news".

A key question to ask yourself is, why? Could traditional media practices have had anything to do with the rise of Rush and his clones?

And do you feel the American people are well-served by having the mainstream media droning in one ear and the people Icerigger cites, bending the other ear?

Should news reporting be a battle of competing predjudices?

[Debaser]

Originally posted by Jackmannii
Should news reporting be a battle of competing predjudices?

Thats just what I have been suggesting in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&postid=1910894#post1910894) .

Everyone is biased on way or the other. The majority of the mainstream media votes democrat. This affects their reporting of the news, simply because of human nature. Until the media voting patterns match that of the American public, there will always be a bias present.

I like the idea of liberals and conservatives presenting the news with an admitted bias. Then the viewer can form their own opinion. This would be more honest than our current system of the Media elites attempting to remain neutral and doing just straight reporting, but in reality their bias creeps into every viewpoint.

[Tejota]

Originally posted by lucwarm
Of course this issue has come up many times on these boards.

I agree that the existence of a Rush Limbaugh show is not really relevant to the question of liberal media bias.

Anyway, one quick and dirty way to measure bias is to do a NEXIS type search for news articles that have phrases like "ultra-conservative" Then do a similar search for phrases like "ultra-liberal." I did this once, and, as I recall, use of phrases like "ultra-conservative" significantly outnumbered the use of phrases like "ultra-liberal."

Right data, silly interpretation. What this really means is that the ultra-conservatives gets press coverage (i.e their voice is represented), while the ultra-liberals are mostly ignored. (their voice is silenced)

Or in other words, media bias is conservative rather than liberal. Or, more likely, this is just a really stupid way to try and measure media bias...

[kanicbird]

there are plenty of prominent conservative commentators out there

One way the media opens itself up to be called a liberal media is that liberals usually define themselves and centrists and mainstream - basically they lie - they are liberal. conservatives usually come right out and say they are a conservative commentator.

Also a fair definition of a liberal in my humble O is one who thinks society can be best served by people not directly involved with an issue so they can look at the issue objectively, while a conservative thinks that the people directly involved should be the ones to deal with the issue.

It's not all inclusive and there is exceptions, but I don't what to hear a definition about a liberal being open minded - I don't want to puke over my new keyboard.

[Sam Stone]

The question is too broad. You will find some issues which the media is centrist or even conservative on, but others in which they are incredibly biased to the left.

Gun control is a good example of media bias. Unfavorable gun stories vastly outnumber the favorable ones. Defensive uses of firearms rarely get mentioned in the news, even when they are spectacular (as in the woman who ran to her car and got a handgun and stopped the last guy who tried to shoot people in a public place - a fact which was virtually ignored in the media).

Another area where there is liberal bias - when conservative activists appear in interviews, they are almost always branded as such, whereas Liberals rarely are. So you'll hear introductions like this: "And now, let's talk to two people who have studied this issue - Conservative writer Robert Novak, and Newsweek columnist Eleanor Clift". In fact, I'll give you an exact transcript of such an exchange, except this time the 'conservative' fought back. From CNN, Dec 18.


Aaron Brown: Some conservatives jumped on [Taliban fighter John] Walker, saying he is a product of cultural liberalism – the California kind – helping to turn an impressionable kid against his own country. Joining us from Salinas, California, one of those conservatives, Shelby Steele of the Hoover Institution. Mr. Steele wrote a provocative article the other day in The Wall Street Journal– a column in the Journal. And here in New York, a columnist who thinks Mr. Steele is making an awfully broad generalization: Richard Cohen of the Washington Post. It’s nice to have both of you here. Mr. Steele.

Shelby Steele: First of all, let me interrupt you just a minute. Is Richard Cohen a liberal?

Brown: Yeah, Richard Cohen’s a liberal. I think he would say that, wouldn’t he?

Richard Cohen: On this issue.

Brown: Okay. Everyone is now branded, I guess.

Steele: Great. If I’m going to be, everybody’s going to be.

[jshore]

Originally posted by december
BTW the listing of Wall Street Journal is only partly correct. The editorial page is indeed very conservative. However, the news page is not. In fact, most of those working on the news are liberals, who sometimes point out errors on the op-ed side of the house.

Geez...They must have a freakin' field day doing this! :D [By the way, I basically agree with your assessment ... Well, I don't know enough about the news side to say they are mostly liberals, but there is a big divide between the Wall Street Journal reporting and its rabid editorial page.]

[veg_all]

Sam Stone, in his sig, quotes Franklin:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." - Benjamin Franklin, 1755

Ashcroft has his own take on this:

"To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve." -Appearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in early December.


I've read a couple of references, one ominous, in an op-ed piece, to this in the NYT, but have heard naught of this horrifying pronouncement elsewhere in the "liberal" media, which, if such existed, one would expect to jump, gnashing, at.

In my experience, to find liberal media, one must search hard. Obviously available sources range from centrist pap (e.g. NPR) to the radically bad faith argumentation available to all Americans via the AM radio band. Thoughtful analysis is by definition abstruse, and therefore not appealing to the general public, and therefore not a large source of advertising profits. How could a media that played to the poor and disenfranchised make a profit? Through charity. This is not how the mainstream media operates.

[Ned]

Sam, I can't imagine a worse article transcript to prove your point to the great unwashed liberal masses. The guy writes a collumn about insulting liberalism and he thinks he is being singled out to be called conservative.

Has no one on the right ever heard of the concepts of data and methodology?

[Odesio]

We've got television, movies, books, magazines, and the internet to contend with if we want to talk about the media.

I certainly think popular television shows lean more towards the left then they do the right. For example I don't think I've ever seen a television program that potrayed private ownership of firearms as a positive thing. At least not since westerns stopped being so popular. For example I caught an episode of ER where they dealt with the incoming victims of a shooting spree. Towards the end of the episode they find out that someone has shot the suspect and the shooting spree has ended. Turns out the the person who shot the suspect was a civilian and they were treating him in the ER because he had been shot as well. They treated him like he was just as bad as the suspect on the shooting spree.

Most people would agree that homosexual rights are more of a leftist issue then it is for those on the right. Popular programs like Will & Grace, Queer as Folk, Oz, and Sex in the City show homosexual relationships in a positive light. I'm just bringing this up because I don't think everything that leans to the left is wrong.

I don't think I've ever seen a movie recently made that potrayed the death penalty as being morally right. Uh, not that there's a whole lot of movies with the death penalty as part of the plot. In most movies with the DP the person convicted is almost always a victim in some way or wrongfully convicted.

And speaking of the news I do think they lean to the left a little bit. But if they smell blood, like they did with Clinton or the Kennedy's, they're going to bite regardless of whether they lean to the left or the right.

Marc

[Ned]

For example I caught an episode of ER where they dealt with the incoming victims of a shooting spree. Towards the end of the episode they find out that someone has shot the suspect and the shooting spree has ended. Turns out the the person who shot the suspect was a civilian and they were treating him in the ER because he had been shot as well. They treated him like he was just as bad as the suspect on the shooting spree.

So who ends up looking bad here? Sounds pretty ambiguous to me.

[Odesio]

Originally posted by Ned


So who ends up looking bad here? Sounds pretty ambiguous to me.

Private gun owners. They treated a person who defended himself and probably saved the lives of others as if he was the same as the guy who went on the shooting spree. I'd call that a negative potrayal but maybe I'm sensitive.

Marc

[Ned]

Like i said before, content analysis is a tricky thing.

You saw a bunch of liberals* who couldn't recognize a hero because it conflicted with their beliefs. Are you sure that isn't what you were supposed to see?

I see this as a pretty sophisticated exposition of the debate ongoing in society. They present the guy as the liberal's stereotypical concept of a gun advocate that liberals should be prepared to dislike except that it is undeniable that it was a damn good thing he was there. Then they hammer it home by treating him poorly and being unable to give him credit for saving the day. I guarantee you this scene would make liberals squirm in their seats.

*I use liberal throughout as a synonym for gun control advocate though they aren't.

[kanicbird]

veg_all that is my sig, not Sam Stone's.

In response to Ashcroft 's statement - I 1st will say that I don't know the context he is saying it. That said I believe that we are responsible for our own security as a FIRST line of defense. We are told to rely on police and the gov't for our safety - I say this can not work as evident on 9-11 and the LIRR Fergason racist scumbag, and so many more.

As for the liberal media - My biggest problem is that conservatives are branded as such and they come right out and admit it. While liberals lie and say they are just ding objective reporting when they are obviously one sided.

Maybe we have to take it issue by issue:
G.W.Bush
B. Clinton
Hillary
Gun Control
Taxes
Welfare
Homeless
School vouchers
Campaign finance reform (that no one gives a crap about anyway except the media)
War
abortion

If you look at it issue by issue you should start to see some bias. Now look at the issues from just the people who claim to be objective reporters - you neck will ache so much from leaning to the left you will need a chiropractor

[jshore]

veg_all: I think you are right on with your analysis. What amuses me is the extent to which many people who claim the media has a liberal bias are so totally ignorant of true liberal media and thought which, as you say, is rather hard to come by unless you go look for it.

MGibson: I note that the issues you tend to label the media as left on are social issues where it can plausibly be argued that reporters might have such a bias since the major reporters are more likely than most to be well educated and from big city regions which tend to correlate with more liberal social views. But, on economic issues, it is a different story.

k2dave: I think your line about campaign finance reform is pretty bizarre. Why exactly do you think it so unimportant? Do you believe those with the most many should have greater access and influence over our politicians? Or, do you think that the politicians can take gobs of money from these people without being influenced in any way, either blatantly or subtlely?

[jshore]

Originally posted by jshore
Do you believe those with the most many should have greater access and influence over our politicians?

That should of course read "...most money...". Urgh!

[lucwarm]

Originally posted by Tejota


Right data, silly interpretation. What this really means is that the ultra-conservatives gets press coverage (i.e their voice is represented), while the ultra-liberals are mostly ignored. (their voice is silenced)

Or in other words, media bias is conservative rather than liberal. Or, more likely, this is just a really stupid way to try and measure media bias...

Well, I agree that you have offered an alternative explanation for what I observed.

However, I don't see how you can reasonably dismiss the liberal media bias explanation as "silly" or "stupid." What makes you so confident that ultra-conservatives get press coverage while ultra-liberals are mostly ignored?

Would you agree that, over the years, Teddy Kennedy has received at least as much press coverage as Jesse Helms?

[lucwarm]

Originally posted by lucwarm


Would you agree that, over the years, Teddy Kennedy has received at least as much press coverage as Jesse Helms?

By the way, if you feel that I've somehow "cooked the books" by choosing Kennedy and Helms, feel free to choose a few prominent senators from each end of the political spectrum for us to compare.

[Crusoe]

Originally posted by k2dave
Also a fair definition of a liberal in my humble O is one who thinks society can be best served by people not directly involved with an issue so they can look at the issue objectively, while a conservative thinks that the people directly involved should be the ones to deal with the issue.

It's not all inclusive and there is exceptions, but I don't what to hear a definition about a liberal being open minded - I don't want to puke over my new keyboard.

I'm not criticising your own philosophy, but a widely accepted and (in my mind, at least) more accurate 'soundbite' is that conservatives believe "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" and liberals believe "if you don't try, you'll never know". I'm not trying to say one viewpoint is better than another; that's one hijack I don't want to start.

[Sam Stone]

Ned, it doesn't matter HOW conservative Shelby Steele is - the issue is whether or not it's right to label him, and not his opponent, if his opponent is on the left side of the political spectrum.

Otherwise, you set up a situtation in which it looks like the conservative is being debated by someone who is at best part of the mainstream. That marginalizes the conservative.

How would you feel if the tables were turned? What if the media introduced people like this: "And now, Liberal author Eleanor Clift, writer for the left-wing magazine "The Nation", will debate the issue with journalist Robert Novak."

Would you consider that an example of bias? Because that is the way conservatives often get treated.

[Neurotik]

To attempt to bring some sense into this we need to distinguish between local and national media. Local media is overwhelmingly conservative (center right), while national media tends to be more liberal (center left). By media I mean newsmedia that don't explicitly take a biased view. National Review identifies itself as a conservative publication, so they don't get entered into it for example. Same thing with any publication claiming itself to be liberal.

That said, liberal in this instance is closer to a center left, than pure left wing liberal. Far left groups don't get much sympathy or coverage from US media sources unless they do something outrageous, while center left groups do. Same deal with far right groups and center right groups.

And through it all, the newsmedia has more of a love of controversy than ideology. They'll skewer a Democrat as quickly as a Republican if they think it will mean more sales.

[Ned]

Ned, it doesn't matter HOW conservative Shelby Steele is - the issue is whether or not it's right to label him, and not his opponent, if his opponent is on the left side of the political spectrum.

And you guys are the ones who think political correctness is silly. How you reconcile that with all your sensativity here is beyond me.

Sorry, but this guy marginalized himself long before he got labeled on tv.

In any case, you are telling me that it is your impression that conservatives are labeled more. Accepting your liberal theories of labeling for a moment have you ever actually confirmed it? Nope. No one has. Come back to me when you have some actual data showing that conservatives are treated differently.

[UncleBeer]

Maybe we have to take it issue by issue
Absolutely. There no way to judge a dominant ideology other than analysis of positions taken on the issues. A mere listing of liberal or conservative entities, publications and prominent individuals does nothing. (Although, if you wish to do that, I will simply point you to P.J. O'Rourke's celebrated Enemies List (http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=0KJYP6MWFP&mscssid=W5JG29S5JMRM9NMFJG8RCSJ5VJWP5SM8&isbn=0871136325), nor am I sure that you can call NPR's audience miniscule—16 million listeners each week on 640 radio stations sounds pretty substantial to me. http://zeus.npr.org/about/about.jhtml)

Anyway, if we consider issues, as suggested, there is a demonstrable bias in mainstream media towards gun control. There was a very recent thread in this forum where that was demonstrated very conclusively. And as I recall it (sorry, can't the search engine to cough up the thread as the index is yet incomplete) all attemtps to prove bias on other issues were inconclusive.

What does this mean? Not much. You must remember the free press in the U.S. has always been biased. In fact, many newspapers and periodicals were founded in our early days simply to promote the views of specific individuals, or groups. It is only relatively recently that the idea of impartial reportage has become an issue.

If you are seeking bias, in any direction, you'll find it easily; that's the nature of news media and always has been. If you wish to obtain your own news from fair and impartial sources, well, you'll have to judge for yourself what you consider fair and impartial. I don't, however, believe you will find one source that is unbiased on all issues no matter how hard you look. As always, your best bet is to take everything you see, read and hear with that proverbial grain of salt, use your critical reasoning processes, and indulge a healthy skpeticism.

[andros]

Damn straight.

Beer shoots and scores.

[Icerigger]

Adding to the mix I would like to include a list of anti-Clinton books (all best sellers)
that really should not exist in the liberal dominated media. To say conservatives have a smaller voice in the public discourse is nonsense.


Boy Clinton, Emmett Tyrell
Secret Life of Bill Clinton, Ambrose Pritchard
Hell to Pay, Barbara Olson
Final Days
Strange Death of Vince Foster, Christopher Ruddy
Absolute Power, David Limbaugh
High Crimes & Misdemeanors, Ann Coulter
Case Against Hillary Clinton, Peggy Noonan
Unlimited Access, Gary Eldrich

December

Tell me something, is being referred to as "the conservative" as bad as being referred to as "the enemy who wants to destroy America" as Rush labels liberals?

Another good example of Conservative spin is the deification of Ronald Reagan. The story as told by some conservatives is that RR saved America and the free world from godless communism and liberalism. RR now has a huge government office building named after him, plus an airport and aircraft carrier. A project is underway to have a RR monument in every county in the U.S. and also to carve his face in Mt. Rushmore! How can RR be so adored by the public in the face of overwhelming ant-conservative media?

[sqweels]

Lucwarm:
What makes you so confident that ultra-conservatives get press coverage while ultra-liberals are mostly ignored?

But what makes someone an 'ultra-liberal'? We need a more exacting characterization of 'liberal' and such proclivities as can be carried forward to the extreme or 'ultra' without destroying the fundamental 'liberal' nature.

Fer starters, there's nothing 'ultra-liberal' about a communist.


Originally posted by k2dave
Also a fair definition of a liberal in my humble O is one who thinks society can be best served by people not directly involved with an issue so they can look at the issue objectively, while a conservative thinks that the people directly involved should be the ones to deal with the issue.

But how does that definition take into account those conservatives who believe that religious elders should dictate so many aspects of peoples lives.

I use liberal throughout as a synonym for gun control advocate though they aren't.

Shouldn't gun control be more properly characterized as 'conservative' in the sense of being 'strictly regulated', and the lack of gun control 'liberal' in the sense of being 'less restrictive' or 'permissive'?

[kanicbird]

jshore
1st I must say that campaign finance reform is unconstitutional as I understand it and expect it to be struck down by the S.C. If I understand it correctly the 1st amendment was written with political speech in mind - though we are lead to believe that is was intended to protect crucifixes dipped in dung in a jar of urine.

Back about 1 yr ago I saw a poll that showed C.F.R. was really a non-issue - people really didn't care.

C.F.R. would benefit the media since they will be the only game in town to talk about a candidate.

Also unions (usually go along with liberals) are exempt. But If I and a bunch of people of common interest wanted to pool our money to buy a TV ad to run near election day we couldn't under CFR.

Do you believe those with the most money should have greater access and influence over our politicians? [

ideally no, BUT you just don't side step the Constitution - amend it if you want to take away the 1st amendment. For that matter amend it if you want to take away the 2nd. Until that is done Congress shall make no law and the right of the people .... shall not be infringed.

I think most politicians are influenced by (lets call it as it is) bribes, Don't you think those who have money will find ways to get it to their politician even with CFR, where does that leave me? - shut out, unable to voice my humble O.

Crusoe I'd say another fair definition but I must add for the right side - but if it's broke fix it (i.e. school vouchers)



Icerigger I would have to say that the public is the one who loves what Ronald Reagan did - not the media.

Tell me something, is being referred to as "the conservative" as bad as being referred to as "the enemy who wants to destroy America" as Rush labels liberals?

I've never heard this - when did Rush say this and what is the context?

sqweels that was a generalization that admittedly was not 100% accurate

Shouldn't gun control be more properly characterized as 'conservative' in the sense of being 'strictly regulated', and the lack of gun control 'liberal' in the sense of being 'less restrictive' or 'permissive'?

If you use the dictionary definition then yes, but if you use real world meanings of the 2 parties then no. I see conservatives as more for personal freedom and liberals as more for gov't regulation of all aspects of out lives - so conservative = less restrictive while liberal = more restrictive.

[Ned]

If you use the dictionary definition then yes, but if you use real world meanings of the 2 parties then no. I see conservatives as more for personal freedom and liberals as more for gov't regulation of all aspects of out lives - so conservative = less restrictive while liberal = more restrictive.

I do agree with your main point that a dictionary definition is silly when it is entirely reasonable to associate liberal groups with gun control efforts in the real world. On the other hand I don't think liberalism mandates gun control and many liberals like guns hence my disclaimer.

Your other point is a bit simplistic as government actions are not the only ones which restrict our freedom. Laws against assault seek to protect our freedom to live free of physical violence. laws against theft protect our freedom to own personal property and accumulate wealth. Democrats are in some areas more prepared to enact laws that they see as increasing the freedom of most people to live free of the negative aspects of others conduct. Conservatives do the same in other areas, they just don't like to recognize it.

Conservatives generally don't seem to have a problem restricting many types of personal conduct and enforcing tradition values which certainly restrict freedom. You may not agree personally but you must admit that in the real world your end of the political spectrum cannot escape this any more than the left can escape its ties to gun control.

[kanicbird]

Laws against assault seek to protect our freedom to live free of physical violence. laws against theft protect our freedom to own personal property and accumulate wealth.

Are you saying that liberals are stricter on crime then conservatives - or am I misreading you?

Conservatives generally don't seem to have a problem restricting many types of personal conduct and enforcing tradition values which certainly restrict freedom.

To some degree I have to agree, drug use comes to mind but I'm sure there are more (again not all L or C is for/against legalization of marijuana but I do see a trend).

I have strayed too far off topic here.

I have noticed something and would like to know if you opinion (since no one responded the 1st time) - Conservatives in the media come right out and say so, while liberals in the media claim to be objective or mainstream.

I think that is the basis of the media bias. Basically you have someone who is suppose to be objective obviously leaning to the left. If they just came out and said they are a liberal journalist then that would take the liberal media fuel away.

[kanicbird]

Just to add:

while liberals in the media claim to be objective or mainstream.

I really think most journalists who fall into this category really think their views are mainstream but don't really know the price of a loaf of bread (they live in a different world then the 'common' folk) and as such think their liberal views are mainstream.

[sqweels]

If you use the dictionary definition then yes, but if you use real world meanings of the 2 parties then no. I see conservatives as more for personal freedom and liberals as more for gov't regulation of all aspects of out lives - so conservative = less restrictive while liberal = more restrictive.

But how we get from the dictionary definition to something meaning the complete opposite? Like Ned was saying whatever happend to liberal meaning 'permissive'? Liberals are 'soft on crime', liberals are for drug legalization, liberals are for gay marriage, liberals are for family planning, liberals are against an anti-flag burning amendment, liberals are for assisted suicide, liberals are against censoring porn, etc.

Clearly we need to look elsewhere for our definitions of liberal and conservative than 'more restrictive vs less restrictive'.

[Ned]

Are you saying that liberals are stricter on crime then conservatives - or am I misreading you?

Yes, you are misreading me. My point was simply that regulation of one persons activity can be seen as defence of freedom for others. Criminal laws of this type are ones most of us can agree result in a net gain of freedom. But yes, we are drifting far from the topic.

I think the trend towards more self identified conservatives is related to the dearth of liberals in the punditocracy. In general news reporting there is a belief in journalistic methods that promote objectivity and, I think, a real effort to actually be objective. I have a number of friends who are journalists and I can tell you they take the responsibility to report objectively very seriously notwithstanding the acknowledged reality that true objectivity is probably impossible. There are certainly many examples of conservatives taking the role of objective reporter who don't wear their political affiliations on their sleeves but the crossover to pundit seems more common with them.

Conservatives lately seem to be embracing postmodern thought lately in ways that I don't think are terribly healthy for society. The impossibility of objectivity does not mean the pursuit of objectivity is without merit. We are getting to the point where the right and left can barely communicate and fractionalization of the media is part of the reason.

[veg_all]

k2dave: oops. sorry. But I don't think you need context to see Ashcroft's statement as a direct contradiction to (your) sig.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by Sam Stone

Would you consider that an example of bias? Because that is the way conservatives often get treated.
Another example is the abortion issue. Pro-choicers are typically described as "pro-choice" or "abortion rights advocates." Their opponents are typically described as "anti-abortion" or "anti-abortion extremists." Additionally, whenever Roe v. Wade's anniversary rolls around, publications such as U.S. News and World Report are quick to print articles on the occasional abortion clinic bombing -- even months or years after the fact -- but almost never report on peaceful alternatives to abortion provided by thousands of pro-life agencies.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/news/mediawatch/1990/mw19900801stud.html

[Ned]

Their opponents are typically described as "anti-abortion" or "anti-abortion extremists.

Got a cite to back up that contention? In my experience backed up by a google search I did just now pro-life is the prefered term by the mainstream press by a fairly wide margin. They seem to use anti-abortion more when describing criminal acts like clinic bombings which I take to be an effort by the press to distinguish such individuals from the mainstream pro-life movement.

Confusing the issue somewhat is whether anti-abortion is such a bad name. A significant portion of the sites my google search came up with were pro-life sites which used the term to describe their activities. Some even argued it was far more appropriate than pro-life.

[veg_all]

JubilationTCornpone : And after all the work expendended on that silly "pro-life" media label. At least the right can still (amazingly) say with a straight face, "the 'Democrat' party," turning the name into an epithet. I'm not a member of the DemocratIC party, but this still grates on me. Lott and his lot are often quoted verbatim (in the media !) using this crude phrase. W.F. Buckley himself frowns upon this hijacking of the English language for political purposes:
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/11/wallraff.htm (http://)
Oops. The source appears to be a member of the liberal media. Well, the quotee has certainly secured his bona fides.

[JubilationTCornpone]

Originally posted by Ned
Got a cite to back up that contention?
Not on hand; however, I had read articles to that effect (which I unfortuanately don't have on file), and this was consistent with my own readings in the print media (which would not be completely reflected by a Google search). I keep an eye out for such things when the anniversary of Roe v. Wade rolls around.

Also, the web page which I cited earlier provides several other examples of slanted abortion-related reporting by the media, including the use of terms such as "militant" or "strident" to describe pro-lifers. The study cited likewise emphasizes that pro-lifers are often depicted in extreme ways (e.g. opposing abortion even in cases of rape or incest), whereas the extreme measures of groups like NARAL (e.g. endorsing abortion even to the last moments of preganncy) are not emphasized and seldom mentioned.

Similar claims can be found at:

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0428_Clearing_Media_Smoke.html

[davidm]

IMHO the whole problem with this type of discussion is that "liberal" and "conservative" are relative, rather than absolute, terms. Someone on the far right is likely to consider moderates to be liberals., while someone on the far left is likely to consider moderates to be conservatives. I've seem some sources accuse the mainstream media of having a liberal bias and I've seen others accuse it of being hopelessly conservative. It's completely subjective.

[Ned]

Not on hand; however, I had read articles to that effect (which I unfortuanately don't have on file), and this was consistent with my own readings in the print media (which would not be completely reflected by a Google search). I keep an eye out for such things when the anniversary of Roe v. Wade rolls around.

Not on hand because they don't exist. The articles you read use the same methodology you do which is to say none at all. I might also point out both articles you cite are over 10 years old and groups which use militant tactics tend to get called militant.

It would seem that the media you prefer to read has little respect for the facts. NARAL takes the position that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land and this does not allow for unrestricted access to abortion until the moment of birth. If you are talking about "partial birth abortions" then you are into an area where your side has gotten the press advantage by a huge margin. Apparently to the extent that you don't even know what the NARAL position is in that respect.

If you read the media looking for bias I guarantee you will find it. If you try to examine the issue with some objectivity it is considerably more difficult.

[kanicbird]

Here's you cite about anti abortion:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&oe=ISO-8859-1&q=anti-abortion+extremists+newsday

the 1st 2 google search hits are for Newsday, a paper that claims to be objective but is IMHO very left leaning.

Actually I was surprised you even asked - I have almost always heard pro life referred to as anti abortion and pro choice referred to as pro choice in the media.

veg_all Context can mean everything with such a statement but lets just say he said and ment it as is and lets just say that I strongly disagree with him on that subject.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally posted by UncleBeer
there is a demonstrable bias in mainstream media towards gun control. There was a very recent thread in this forum where that was demonstrated very conclusively.I didn't read that thread, but that seems plausible to me. Methinks, the mainstream media has a NYC/DC/LA bias, because of their location. All those areas are urban, which would tend to advance the gun control position.

But let's look at the large question objectively ;). Or rather, let's try. One measure might be the sort of "experts" that tend to be cited in various articles and their affiliations. If the preponderance of think tanks that are cited tend to be conservative, that might indicate a conservative bias. Ditto if the positions of certain liberal think tanks tend to be under-reported or ignored.

Ok, here's a table from FAIR. (http://www.fair.org/extra/9805/think-tanks.html)

Top Ten Think Tanks, by Newspaper Citation

Think Tank Political Orientation 1997 Citations 1996 Citations
Brookings Institution centrist 2,296 2,196
Heritage Foundation conservative 1,813 1,779
American Enterprise Institute conservative 1,323 1,401
Cato Institute conservative/libertarian 1,286 1,136
RAND Corporation center-right 865 826
Council on Foreign Relations centrist 755 727
Center for Strategic and International Studies conservative 668 586
Urban Institute center-left 610 655
Economic Policy Institute progressive 576 452
Freedom Forum centrist 531 625


Note that there are only 2 lefty organizations on the list. (Note also that Brookings has a preponderance of Republican analysts and managers (http://www.fair.org/extra/9811/brookings.html), justifying its "centrist" label.) I concede though, that relative to Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, Tom DeLay and the current administration they are indeed liberal.

[Ned]

Well, I did a search on cnn comparing the usage and was surprised to see that anti-abortion and pro-life are used almost interchangably sometimes within the same article. I still fail to see the bias in not using an ideologically loaded term that does not accurately describe the advocacy.

Sometimes ideologicaly loaded terms do get used when there isn't a more descriptive neutral alternative. Family values comes to mind as an example of this. Pro-choice is probably less so but it isn't used much when abortion rights fits in gramatically.

I continue to find it amusing to see the same crowd who can't understand PC applying the logic so vociferously to their own causes.

[Measure for Measure]

Oh, and here's a summary table, from the FAIR (http://www.fair.org/extra/9805/think-tanks.html) link:


Think Tank Ideology Media Citations 1997 Media Citations 1996
Conservative or Right-Leaning 7,733 (53%) 7,706 (54%)
Centrist .....................4,623 (32%) 4,329 (30%)
Progressive or Left-Leaning ..2,267 (16%) 2,177 (15%)
TOTAL .......................14,623 .....14,212
Looks to me like the US media has a center-right bias. I doubt whether this would surprise many Europeans.

[Profane]

Part of the reason that anti-abortion and pro-life are used interchangably, is that pro-life people are anti-abortion. For the most part, they don't want people to ever have abortions. Pro-choicers, again for the most part, are not pro-abortion. They are not trying to get every woman to have an abortion, they want every woman to have the option available.


As to the OP, people's own leanings usually affect how they perceive bias.

[ElvisL1ves]

flowbark, I once simply linked to a site that called the Brookings Institution "centrist", and was warned that Kimstu would kick my ass for it.

I wonder where she is?

[UncleBeer]

One measure might be the sort of "experts" that tend to be cited in various articles and their affiliations. If the preponderance of think tanks that are cited tend to be conservative, that might indicate a conservative bias. Ditto if the positions of certain liberal think tanks tend to be under-reported or ignored.
I'm not sure you can infer anything from the number of citations alone. For instance, an article can cite the NRA and still be pro gun control. The context is what is important here. In fact, you'll see this in nearly every political debate on these boards. A poster will cite information from a source opposed to her view and then go on to disparage it. Hell, I know I've cited HCI, or whatever they're calling themselves these days, many times. Ditto for Pete Shields. In fact, I've probably cited them more than the NRA and Wayne LaPierre. Does this mean I'm pro-control? Hah!

Beer shoots and scores.
Thanks, andros. A rare moment of lucidity and impartiality for me.

[DPWhite]

If your definition of liberal is that the reporting seeks a wide range of views on the event, then the mainstream media is liberal and that is the definition of mainstream media, you get all sides of the story.

What conservatives complain about on their talk shows and such is that any news that allows a liberal view to be put forth with the others is a liberal show.:eek:

[Measure for Measure]

DP White: Wait a second. The claim by FAIR, et al is that the media essentially reflects a conversation between conservatives and centrists. You see a rational discourser from Brookings facing off with a shoot-from-the-hip conservative from the Heritage Foundation.*

That does not reflect a wide range of views. (And it makes for a fairly odd debate.)

The Economic Policy Institute and the Center for Defense Information, on the other hand, get short shrift.

Unclebeer: Ok, but look how few times progressive foundations are cited. (16%). That's an awfully low figure. The debate is invariably framed between "free market" and "some intervention, but we'll be careful". (Again, on gun control I concede the point, though I hasten to add that I haven't looked into the specifics).

Still, another approach might be to survey the attitudes of the journalists doing the reporting. Hmmm, where might I find a study like that? (http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html)

*Not that all conservatives are "shoot from the hip" types. The analysis from AEI, Hoover and occasionally Cato can be quite good.

[JohnBckWLD]

Originally posted by Icerigger
Prominate media conservatives
George Will
Janet Parshall
William Safire
Mona Cheron
William F Buckley
Tucker Carlson
Phillis Schafly - Not a member of the media
Fred Barnes
Elaine Donnelly
Paul Wyrick
Laura Ingram
Robert Novack
Mary Matilyn
Reed Irvine
Kate O'Beirne
John McGlocklin (sic)
Arianna Huffington - Switched sides
Bruce Fein
Pat Buchanon
Kathleen Parker
Tony Blankley
Paul Harvey
Peggy Noonan

I believe this is a good rundown of the conservative media that
conservatives claim is dominated by liberals.

S pointed out previouly, all of the above are "commentators" who are paid to give their opinion, not present the news in as unbiased a way as possible.

When it comes to Journalists / Anchors / Reporters; From a June 1997 WSJ article...

The line between politics and journalism has long been blurred by political operatives entering the media. The (conservative) Media Research Center has spent the past decade tracking this revolving door between politics and the media; the current count: 322 Democrats vs. 82 Republicans. On the very day CBS announced (hiring form GOP Rep. Susan) Molinari...ABC tapped Jim Williams, press secretary for Chicago's Democratic Mayor Richard M. Daley, as a correspondent--and not a peep was heard.

CBS News itself has a longtime partisan political operative influencing its political coverage. No, not Ms. Molinari, but senior political editor Dotty Lynch, who directed polling for George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Ted Kennedy, the Democratic National Committee and the 1984 Mondale campaign, all before joining CBS in 1985. And Ms. Lynch is hardly atypical. David Burke served as Sen. Kennedy's chief of staff from 1965 to 1971. By 1977 he was a vice president at ABC News. In 1988, he became president of CBS News, a post he held for two years. When Sen. Kennedy ran for re-election in 1994, who was at his side but Mr. Burke, "advising him on strategy," according to the Boston Globe. In 1995 this newspaper reported that President Clinton brought Mr. Burke along on a February trip to California, "to provide political and communications tips."

So where does the New York Times get the audacity to denounce Ms. Molinari's appointment in an editorial headlined "The GOP News From CBS"?

During the Reagan and Bush years the revolving door between the administration and journalism slowed, but the pace picked up with Mr. Clinton's victory. For example:

Sidney Blumenthal, a correspondent for The New Yorker and former reporter for the Washington Post, will join the administration as a senior political adviser, it was reported this week.
Donald Baer, assistant managing editor of U.S. News & World Report, came aboard as director of White House speechwriting and research.
Carolyn Curiel, a "Nightline" producer and former New York Times editor, took a White House speechwriting slot.
Rick Inderfurth, an ABC News reporter during the 1980s, joined United Nations Ambassador Madeleine Albright's shop in New York and has been nominated assistant secretary of state for South Asian affairs.
Thomas Ross, senior vice president of NBC News, became special assistant to the president and senior director of public affairs at the National Security Council.
Tara Sonenshine has traversed from being a "Nightline" producer to the NSC to Newsweek's Washington bureau, then back to the NSC--all during the Clinton years.
Strobe Talbott, Time magazine's Washington bureau chief in the late 1980s, is now deputy secretary of state.
Having a revolving door between politics and journalism is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, men and women with extensive political experience, regardless of ideology, can be a great asset in the political news business. But only if they are capable of leaving personal biases behind in search of fair, balanced reporting. This can be said of NBC's Tim Russert, who worked for Mario Cuomo. It can be said of his colleague Pete Williams, who served under George Bush. Many others qualify as well.

Susan Molinari hasn't spent a minute in the anchor's chair, yet she's already been declared guilty of trying to package a partisan ideology as news. Passing judgment on her performance before the fact is bad enough, but this dedication to "objective journalism" is simply preposterous coming from the liberal media elite

[Spavined Gelding]

Surely I'm not the only person who thinks this debate is futile. Maybe I am alone in having the time and ego to think that my thinking this is a silly argument is of any importance. This fight has been going on since John Cameron Swazy (sp?) brought you the Korean War. The fight is confined to TV news. Apparently everyone thinks that newspapers, magazines and news letters are entitled to have their own political view point. Apparently there is some idea that news programing has to be squeaky clean impartial and that any arguable slight departure from absolute evenhandedness is cause to roll on the floor and foam at the mouth about the unfairness of the whole thing. We count the number of times a topic is addressed; even the number of times a word is used, and draw conclusions from those stastics.

Do you people have some God given right to be spoon fed everything? Have you no capacity for critical thinking? Doesn't anybody understand that TV news is a business and that any slanting of the program will lose viewers, advertisers and money? If you are depending on the network evening news for your information on what is going on in the world and complaining because you are not being told precisely what you want to hear then you are doomed to a life of disappointment and woeful ignorance.

I think I'll go off to some quiet place and lie down for a while.

[Measure for Measure]

Originally posted by Spavined Gelding
The fight is confined to TV news. Apparently everyone thinks that newspapers, magazines and news letters are entitled to have their own political view point. Actually, much of the debate centers around mainstream publications such as the NYT, Time, Shmoozweek, etc.Do you people have some God given right to be spoon fed everything? Have you no capacity for critical thinking? Doesn't anybody understand that TV news is a business and that any slanting of the program will lose viewers, advertisers and money?No. Some. Well, the slanting must be subtle. Seriously, I think it is valid to complain that a certain POV is, um, skipped. You know, ignored. Whatever my critical facilities, it is difficult to evaluate positions that are not put forward.

Now, my opinion of the work of EPI (http://www.epinet.org/), for example, is mixed. I suspect that I would be sympathetic to their stance on unemployment insurance reform, the living wage (but not the miniumum wage), income redistribution policy and ergonomics standards. I probably part company with their free trade and minimum wage stance. Not sure about their views on environmental and educational policy.

But I would like to see their views represented in some way. Ditto for CDI (http://).
(I'd also like to see this think tank coverage study updated for 9/11/00 - 9/10/01. I wonder how the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (http://www.cbpp.org/) or Citizens for Tax Justice (http://www.ctj.org/) would rank.I think I'll go off to some quiet place and lie down for a while. I agree that it's good to kick back every now and then. :)

[Ned]

Thought this cite was worthy of being added to the thread. It tests Goldberg's assertion that conservatives are more often labeled as such than liberals and finds it contradicted by the evidence.

http://www-csli.stanford.edu/%7Enunberg/bias.html

[Jackmannii]

"Doesn't anybody understand that TV news is a business...?"


I believe part of the criticism of broadcast news stems from the fact that it involves a publicly-owned resource - the airwaves. The idea that TV and radio utilize a broadcast spectrum owned by all of us was behind the Fairness Doctrine, equal time rules and all of the protections that the Right and Left have been eager to discard like so much useless baggage.

But never fear. Who needs a fair, professional and dependable broadcast news service? We've got lots of nifty alternatives, like Matt Drudge and Michael Reagan. :rolleyes: