CNN does not have a liberal bias!!

Great Debates
21

I don’t suppose that you would be suprised to find out that Europe has no ‘right’ of any consequence, would you? It’s a bit humorous to hear about the latest ‘ultra-right -wing-OMG-just-like-HITLER’ party in Europe. Of course, they still support the concept of the welfare state and all its social programs (to varying degrees), but the goose-stepping bastards want less immigration! And as we all know, less immigration= ‘ultra-right -wing-OMG-just-like-HITLER’.

No offense, but the majority of Europeans have no idea what proper right-wing (‘conservative’) philosophy is all about, thanks in no small part to your plethora of state-run media outlets.

22

Nor, presumably, does Canada, Japan, Australasia or any other industrialised democracy? There are many ‘conservative’ parties who advocate varying degrees of privatisation and dismantling of government apparatus, none of whom appear to be unduly shut out of state-subsidised media outlets (very few of which could be accurately described as ‘state run’, although I’ve sen you appeal to this canrd so often that I hold out little hope of convincing you otherwise.)

23

This highlights on of the fallacies always trotted out in this debate: the idea that “right” and “left” are static and not relative.

If we accept the right-left paradigm, we can depict it as a spectrum, Left to right with “0” as the absolute center of average political opinion:

<-D----------C-------------F-------------->
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 +4
If we imagine that CNN is at a -1, FOX at +2, and Democratic Underground (by their own admission an extreme leftist group) at -4, we find out that pretty much everyone’s correct:

CNN is left leaning
Fox is right leaning
Fox is more right than CNN is Left
In the eyes of the DU crowd, they’re both too far to the right.
Not that I think this will help…

24

… especially not when I screw up the coding.

25

What a network with a real left-wing bias would have done in regards to the war in Iraq:

(1) They would have actually shown significant footage of some of casualties of war and show more interest in questions like the extent to which the U.S. was using cluster bombs.

(2) They would have reported things in the buildup and aftermath of the war such that the American public didn’t believe lots of false “facts” about the war (see here).

Hell, these [esp. (2)] are things that a network that is trying to inform the public would do, even if they were not liberal-biased.

Apparently, if a network is not simply part of the Bush propaganda machine, it has a left-wing bias. (And, perhaps even if it is largely a part of it, it still might?)

26

In the UK, one might characterise the Guardian newspaper or perhaps Channel 4 News as being ‘leftist’. The BBC strives, and generally succeeds IMO, to provide balanced insight as free from opinion or audience-pandering as it can (the recent brouhaha over a single claim about a single document actually supprting this contention since I cannot imagine such a molehill being mentioned on any other news source, let alone inflated so). I would place the BBC at the same centre as other international news agencies such as Reuters or AP. CNN seems vastly to the right of the BBC and Reuters - to hear it described as ‘leftist’ simply beggars belief.

27

I believe the “center” the OP is thinking of is vis-a-vis the USA, not Europe.

28

Replace “Bush” with “GOP” and I’ll agree with you. Even before George took office, the right-wing pundits were already branding “liberal media” on anyone who didn’t try to emulate Limbaugh and O’Reilly.

29

And we did, in fact, find out that the accusations were true, Bush’s not being formally AWOL only because he was never formally charged. What, you’re going to dispute Cecil on that?

(1) “Much more serious” in what way?,
(2) If it was completely ignored, how do you even know about it?, and
(3) Their story isn’t worth anything compared to the one told by those who were there, and
(4) It’s changed back and forth anyway.

Wouldn’t you have to conclude from that that “the media” *have * covered both situations responsibly?

Because that time, “the media” were, once again, discussing a fact - the fact that demonstrable lies were being told on behalf of a candidate attacking another’s character.

You ought to know that Moore is essentially self-funding and low-budget anyway. And how could you possibly have missed *all * of the George Soros grant stories? That most certainly did get widely reported, although perhaps not where you normally look.

On what *factual * basis do you think they haven’t already received the coverage they merit?

False analogy. The paid liars’ group did *not * serve *with * Kerry, despite the claim in the ad. Those who *did * serve with him support him wholeheartedly. And where are you going to find 12 more people who claim they even *saw * Bush in Alabama?

It’s puzzling why you’re still fixated on finding a way to think those who are telling a story you like hearing are telling the truth, while accusing those who were there of lying, despite the totality of the factual evidence, and that those who don’t are ipso facto biased.
furt, Democratic Underground is enthusiastically, bashingly, partisan, a rough equivalent to Free Republic except with a sense of humor, but that is hardly the same as “extreme left wing”. Where did you see that “admission”?

30

ElvisL1ves:

Can’t speak for furt but I think I have some experience as being a lurker in the DU, I can describe DU as a “big” tent of the left, I see that many members are centrists or left of center, but I have seen several extreme leftists and even some, that even I, could call the loony left.

However, the reason why I brought them to this discussion was to point out their threads on the media, and essentially my point, that I recognize, has not been descrived properly:

I am getting tired of the condescending attitude that many in the right have by assuming what should be “our” news. So many times, I see this on the behavior of calling CNN a left wing source, when the left does not. I mean, I do take into consideration the evidence and the words from conservative members when I call FOX news a right-wing news source, or take into consideration the fact that many on the right do like that source of information.

But there is no consideration at all for what many on the left have pointed out as why we don’t consider CNN, CBS, etc our news, and many on the left frankly do not like the right wing drift those sources have taken of lately. So I would like some acknowledgement from the right that our opinion, in an already opinioned subject, has been taken into account.

31

IIRC after Ted Turner left CNN, there were reports, a few years ago, that CNN was going to make efforts to get close to the right; recognizing the strength of FOX news. The results now are clear to me, and more reason why I don’t consider CNN to be left leaning.

32

This study suggests to me some descriptive, albeit wordy, slogans for the various networks:

Fox: “The more you watch, the more you know…that just ain’t so!”

CNN and the rest of the TV networks: “So left-wing that people who watch us more are not any more likely to believe Bush Administration lies and innuendo about Iraq than those who watch us less!”

33

What bias?

34

Putting aside the fact that CNN wasn’t even mentioned in this article, let’s look at some of those niggly details you conveniently skipped over:

Of course, considering the gist of the article is expressing disbelief that some attendees at the conference broke from tradition by expressing overt partisanship, that also undermines the notion of a longstanding “liberal bias” in the media. Not that you’d recognize the point…

35

I currently do not have a television, so I don’t know that what you’re saying here is what goes out over the airwaves, but it sounds to me like you are making an accusation without merit here. Then again, I may be wrong.
Cite, please?

36

I already linked the cite. Usage of liberal thinks tanks is much higher than that of conservative think tanks, and conservative think tanks are more likely to be labeled ‘conservative’ than liberal think tanks are ‘liberal’.

37

I am not disputing that more left leaning think tanks may be cited in news reporting than right leaning think tanks. I am questioning your charge that a “liberal” think tank gets straight up reportage while the conservative think tank gets branded on air for being right wing.

38

There’s a couple of terms that are being blurred that are better kept clear: right- or left-wing has traditionally meant the extreme fringe, the very periphery of a particular side. The ability to understand degrees of difference is essential. The fact that Ralph Nader does not think John Kerry is liberal enough does not change the fact that w/r/t the general population, Kerry is in fact a liberal; it’s just that Nader is left-wing. Similarly, the fact that Pat Buchanan thinks Bush is not conservative enough does not change the fact that Bush is in fact right-of-center.

ISTM that most on the right are not unaware or in denial of the differences between the center-left and the far left, just as presumably you are aware of the differences on the right. But what you are asking them to do is essentially concede their impressions to yours; IOW since many on the left do not regard CNN, CBS et al as left-leaning ergo they must not be, whatever else their observation and reasoning tells them. But surely you realize that many if not most on the right do not see FOX as “their” news: they see it as “fair and balanced” or “accurate” and that’s why they watch it.

Michael Savage is a right-wing radio host who is nonetheless nationally syndicated with a large listenership. He frequently says that Fox News is not really conservative, that they’re “phonies” and that he is the only voice for real conservativism. Are you prepared to give him what you yourself are asking for?

39

I must have missed your cite for this, which is in direct contradiction to [url=]this cite which even lists the citations to each think-tank so you can run your own numbers if you disagree with their categorization of the various think-tanks.

40

Okay, I at least see where you got that claim from. But, as GIGOBuster noted, any study that finds the Drudge Report to be left-of-center by 3 out of 4 measures of the center is highly questionable in where it is defining the center. Their methodology is interesting but also sort of bizarre. And, while it is probably not too bad at getting some relative measures of one news outlet vs. another, it is really dubious at deciding where the center is. And, they even admit that their results are out-of-synch with the results of others. (Of course, they just think everyone else is wrong.)

Oh, and lest you think that this was a study by two disinterested academics while FAIR’s was by a liberal watchdog group, I’ll note that FAIR’s is also done by an academic and that Jeff Milyo seems to have connections to (or at least publish in) Reason magazine and such.