CNN does not have a liberal bias!!

Great Debates
41

When I say “their” news I am precisely talking of the general belief that the right has when they consider FOX news fair and balanced*, I do take that into account, I am only mentioning that as the OP and many on the left, that I have seen here on the dope, DU, and in many other sources, that they don’t consider CNN fair and balanced, as a pragmatic liberal, I do consider CNN as drifting between center and right of center. And no matter how many times we tell it, and that Ted Turner is no longer the owner of CNN, the right is not taking into account that the left does not consider CNN fair and balanced.

Yes, because on the extreme left, I do think that the analogous end of the spectrum, where Savage is, is the loony communists. Even here on the dope the liberals have a field day bursting their balloons, I have to mention here that I have noticed, more than once, that members of the right put communists in the same area as liberals. Now, you tell me who is more objective in this case?

I see (get rid of gays) Savage as the loony right, and just as the loony left, I would not give them the time of day, the fact that some in America do listen to Savage, should worry everyone who is fair and balanced, no? :slight_smile:

As F/911 showed, liberals are also a powerful audience, IIRC the Franklen Factor, on Air America, has beaten Savage in areas were both are present; when I see that protests for the war were less popular that the protests against the war, I think then that the ideology, of the corporation owners of the media, does play a part on deciding what would be “interesting” for the American population. I do think that if it was just free enterprise, that even they would have noticed a long time ago that ignoring the left, has meant loss of revenue, but since conservatives are the ones with more money, that is were the spectrum of the corporate media swings more often, to the right.

Regarding DU: I just noticed that their front page just posted a note on this subject:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/08/10_cnn.html

*IIRC there are studies showing how high the level of ignorance in matters, like Iraq, the Fox viewers are: but that is another subject.

42

Here is a nice critique of the Groseclose and Milyo paper by Geoff Nunberg. (At the bottom, there is also a link to a response by Groseclose and Milyo.)

Here is an interesting discussion of the paper that I found on another message board from a google search. Here is one of the comments from there:

Another notes that the paper has apparently not been submitted for publication or peer-review. (Of course, I imagine that the FAIR study hasn’t either but at least it is more transparent to see what was done there.)

43

Well. whatever. Maybe there’s a lag people’s perceptions or something; I don’t watch CNN enough to notice (I usually flip between MSNBC/FOX/BBC/CNN in that order). Be that as it may; it still boils down to “CNN can’t be left-leaning, because I’m left-leaning and I don’t think it is.” I’m sorry, that’s simply absurd. If a republican were to tell you he thought Fox was left-leaning (and some do), would that make a difference in your opinion?

Ah, but I’d argue that he is not analogous to out-and-out communists, based simply on listenership. Far more accurate would be comparison to the farthest-left figure with a large following; Moore perhaps. The analogues to the communists are those even more rightist than Savage.

44

Sorry, but here I lose any respect for your position, what parallel from Savage hating gays are we getting from Moore?

45

I’m not a Michael Savage supporter by any means. My point is that if you’re trying to assess where the “center” of the populace is, you’re much better off looking at ratings than by trying to rate someone’s ideology. The latter is purely subjective, the former markedly less so.

Comparing MS to an out-and-out-communist is inadequate for the simple reason that an out-and-out communist would not get MS’s ratings, just as a far-right fascist would not. MS has a well-rated national show; I submit that we can assume a sizable percentage of his listenership agrees with him. You and I may not like it, but that’s the fact.

Assuming MS is the farthest-to-the-right figure on the national scene, it is more accurate to pair him up with the farthest-to-the-left person with a roughly similar-sized audience: I suggested Moore, but you can feel free to substitute someone else on the hard left who, again, has roughly the same-sized audience.

Comparing him to someone so far on the fringe that they have no mass audience simply assures that the overall picture is skewed, and that in the end you’ll have a distorted view of where the “center” really is.

46

I’m offering no cites but here’s a perspective to consider: posturing. As the GOP became more ideological Republicans embraced conservatism but Democrats didn’t do the same with liberalism. Partly this is because a lot of Democrats consider themselves conservative. Others have no reason to defend liberalism because they are too busy trying to be considered in the middle.

For profit media organizations also want to be percieved as moderate. They don’t need to turn off conservative customers. Perhaps the loud cries of “liberal media” aren’t intended to create extra consideration for conservative views in the mainstream media but that seems to be the result.

47

But perhaps this has provided a means to disprove the liberal bias in other media outlets? the major netowrks get a much larger share than Fox, for example. I’m just curious.

48

Do we need a clearer example of media bias than the Kerry/Swiftboat flap? This story has been out there for a week, has caught Kerry in a pretty big lie, and forced him to issue an official retraction of a claim he has been making for 35 years, including on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

17 out of 23 of Kerry’s fellow Swiftboat commanders say he isn’t fit to be CinC. Including ranks all the way up to Rear Admiral. Including a man who served on his boat and 16 who served with him in the same unit and went on missions with him. This is news.

Their book hit #1 on Amazon before it was released. They have ads running in the battleground states accusing Kerry of crimes and putting their reputations on the line.

There has not been a single mention of this on ABC, CBS, NBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the LA Times.

When George Bush was accused of being AWOL, a flood of reporters were all over that story, demands for all guard records were being levied, and it was an ‘above the fold’ story for weeks. They went so far as to get dental records and interview Bush’s old dentist to see if all the stories match.

Kerry has refused to release all of his Vietnam records, and no one in the media is asking him to.

17 of Kerry’s fellow Swiftboat skippers have signed affidavits that he has fraudulently acquired his medals. Not one of them has even been asked for an interview by the big three networks or the three major newspapers of record.

49

Bullshit. A search of the New York Times online for “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” [sic] returns the following articles:

NATIONAL DESK | August 7, 2004, Saturday $
THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: ADVERTISING; Claims and Counterclaims Surround Anti-Kerry Ad
By JIM RUTENBERG (NYT) 980 words

NATIONAL DESK | August 6, 2004, Friday $
Anti-Kerry Ad Is Condemned By McCain
By JIM RUTENBERG (NYT) 430 words

NATIONAL DESK | August 5, 2004, Thursday $
Vietnam Veterans Buy Ads to Attack Kerry
By JODI WILGOREN (NYT) 905 words

NATIONAL DESK | July 27, 2004, Tuesday $
VETERANS; In Battle of Patriotic Symbols, Veterans Muster in Kerry Camp
By DAVID M. HALBFINGER (NYT) 1241 words

50

Excuse me Sam? The swifters have been found to be less than honest, and there are many more examples, the left has seen, where the swifters look even more ugly. The complaint of the left is that if the media were, day in and day out, discussing the evidence that shows the evidence the swifters as partisan hacks, then anyone that does not condemn them would look really ugly. (well hello Mr. –I am not condemning this ad- Bush!) Nevertheless, many outlets like CNN even showed portions of the ad with only the commentary that there was a controversy! That is right, CNN headline news never reported on were the swifters came from!

I am trying to remember, but there was a blogster a long time ago that made an important point, for example: many on the left pointed that the tax cuts were going to benefit the rich more than the middle class or the poor; the media, to show fairness, gave airtime to the nonsensical or misleading (you make the call) position of the right. And so, even thought the position of the left was the correct one, the position of the right got airtime, regardless of its accuracy.

And you make these flip-floper swifters an important example of bias? When this president became elected, there was a plurality of Americans that did not think this was the leader we needed. When a similar thing happened before, (a president elected by less than the majority of the voters), Rutherford B. Hayes recognized the will of the majority by promising not to run again, a promise that he fulfilled. The media of the day called him in several occasions his fraudulency and was over his case, just in case he had changed his mind.

Today, in the “liberal media”, there is only the recorded mention of Dan Rather, in one occasion he made the comment that a good number of Americans don’t think Bush was elected properly, or some words like that. Never mind Rather was factual in saying a good number of Americans don’t believe this yahoo should be considered our president, Dan Rather was chastised for that and no mention of that ever surfaced in the mainstream, these swifters OTOH have been mentioned several times already in this “liberal” media, and often without direct criticisms of their “evidence”

When even the Post and the New York times reported recently that they dropped the ball on the way to war, ask yourselves: wouldn’t have been better to have a media acting as the fourth power it is supposed to be? doesn’t it show anything to you that even then the corporate media is branded liberal?

Even when the media decided (and still does on the way to the election) to drop anything that would remind the people about the current president’s lack of plurality and incompetence, the corporate media is still called liberal’

If you are a believer in the “liberal media” myth, the reality is: your media compass is way, way to the right.

51

:rolleyes:

Anyone who think the “Swift Bullshiters for Bush” is a credible source for news is displaying an obvious conservative bias. Not that you’d admit it, of course.

Of course, what you really meant to say is, “Why hasn’t the media believed this story already?” And the answer is that real journalists realize that, as it stands, it’s more made-up bullshit than real news.

Here, for example, is the Washington Post’s take on the matter:

Of course, a thorough and independent investigation of the charges is the last thing the Swifties want, since (as has already been hashed out in Great Debates, to your own chagrin), the Swifties have credibility the same way Iraq has WMDs.

But then again, given how readily you’ve latched on to the Swifties’ accusations – even when those charges have been resoundingly debunked – your attempts to use the non-coverage of this non-event as an “example” of “liberal bias” is no surprise at all.

52

That’s straight out of the Democratic spin machine. It’s funny - I don’t seem to recall a lot of handwringing over who funded the people who made the charges against Bush. For that matter, I’ve seen John O’Neill on cable now three times, twice paired off with some guy for ‘Vietnam Veterans For Kerry’. On both of those occasions, the debate quickly shifted to who was funding the Swift Vets, and all this stuff about (gasp!) Republicans being involved was dragged out ad nauseum. Not once did anyone inquire who was funding “Vietnam Veterans for Kerry”. Why is that?

And I’m not saying that the media has to accept this story. What they should do is investigate the charges, rather than just smearing the messengers.

Are you trying to tell me that if, say, George Bush’s ENTIRE SQUADRON came forward as a group and started claiming that his service records were false, that he didn’t serve the way he said, that the media would just look the other way? Give me a break.

These guys are eyewitnesses. 16 of them who were present at the events in question have signed affidavits and are willing to repeat their stories under oath. They are begging for the facts to be heard.

It’s no big surprise that they got a Republican to give them $100,000. If these guys have charges that can hurt Kerry, there are plenty of Republicans that would like to help them get their message out.

Or should we ignore everything MoveOn and other 527 groups on Kerry’s side have to say, because they are largely funded by rich Democrats?

53

For pity’s sake, Sam, you do know better than that. You’re still trying to argue that allegations are equivalent to facts, and should be reported on an equal basis. Even a minimal respect for truth leads one away from that.

Responsible media reports facts. The key allegations that this group is “desperate” to get out are so dubious, so hole-ridden, so self-contradictory, so contrary to those provided by those in a much better position to provide them (and you still are implying that they’re lying) are *not *responsibly reported as facts. These things lack credibility outside the realm of those who desperately want something to stick to the candidate they oppose, no matter how, and who can tell themselves that anything derogatory about them must be factual.

The media are *not * required to participate in smear campaigns, in fact their mission requires them *not * to. They do have a legitimate and necessary role in looking into allegations, reaching conclusions based on facts, if they’re baseless then reporting that a smear campaign exists, and who’s behind it and funding it, and what its participants motives could be. The sources of funding behind those who have established their credibility as tellers of the facts are, however, irrelevant, like it or not. The media that is refusing to go along with the Get Kerry For Something wing is doing its job, and about damn time too.

Now, are you ever going to tell us why you’re calling Kerry’s own men, the ones who were there, liars? Or how you’ve weighed the statements pro *and * con, along with the credibility of those who’ve made them and their history of holes and changes, and reached a contrary conclusion anyway? We do know how you did that, actually, but it would be refreshing to get it from you.

54

You mean like Bush’s AWOL charges? The media reported on those charges LONG before they had the ‘facts’.

55

Cite, please, of CNN reporting on these charges before they had the “facts”. Or, better yet, a cite of CNN reporting – with a liberal bias – on these charges before they had the “facts”.

While I can’t speak for anyone else in this thread, I know that what I would be saying is: If George Bush’s ENTIRE SQUADRON came forward as a group and started claiming that his service records were false, that he didn’t serve the way he said-- BUT made the claim, in the past, that he had served the way that he said, and that the records were not false (you know, contradicting themselves) – then the media would probably just look the other way. Because at that point, something starts to look shady, and politically motivated.

LilShieste

56

By the numbers–

Number of SWIFT boat crew members who served with Kerry and support his account of events: 10.

Number of “SWIFT Boat Veterans For Truth” members who served with Kerry: 0.

Number of Alabama National Guardsmen who served with George W. Bush and support his account of events: 0.
Final score: Kerry-10, Bush-0, Swift Bullshiters For Bush-0.

57

rjung, in fairness, there is 1 guy who insists Bush hung out in his office in Alabama, out of sight or mind of everyone else. Unfortunately his dates don’t match up, and the direct statements of all the others who say they certainly would have known if Bush were there have a substantial cumulative weight.

FTR, Sam, “Kerry’s entire squadron”, minus one or two, *does * support his statements. Bush’s “entire squadron” does *not * support *his * (or, rather, those of his loyalists, Bush’s own statements being curt and detail-free). You do see why your analogy works against you now, don’t you?

You really don’t care enough about the facts to do even minimal checking before proclaiming your preferred version as the truth, do you? Start here: Not reading links to his columns makes the Baby Cecil cry.
Click away.

The 2000 article by the Globe’s Walter Robinson has had its factuality confirmed extremely well. This, since you haven’t cared enough to look into it before posting, was the article that first broke the story nationally. Unfortunately CNN.com does not list anything at all on the subject before this year, although that in itself means nothing either way.

Want to “clarify” your assertion that it was reported without the facts first being known now? Or just have that too tossed in the constantly-growing pile labeled “Sam’s Tedious Bullshit”?

58

I’m talking about the latest AWOL charges a while ago.

But speaking of BS:

Uh, no. Steve Gardner was ON KERRY’S BOAT. In fact, he SERVED THE LONGEST WITH KERRY. I have repeated this now a bunch of times, but it just keeps getting ignored. Gardner is a member of SBVT, and a categorical opponent of Kerry’s.

And seventeen other Swift Boat vets DID serve with Kerry. They served right alongside him. They trained with him, went on missions with him (Swift boats always worked in groups of two to six). They were eyewitnesses to most of his disputed actions. They debriefed with him. The group includes HIS COMMANDING OFFICER. And THE HEAD OF SWIFT BOAT OPERATIONS FOR VIETNAM. Along with every other officer in his chain of command. Many of these men served with Kerry during his entire stay in Vietnam.

In contrast, the guys who are supporting him did not serve with him very long. Gardner, the one who served longest, was with him for a couple of months.

The enlisted men on his boat are not necessarily even qualified to judge his actions. They don’t necessarily know what their exact orders were. They don’t necessarily know if doctrine was followed.

The seventeen members of his Swiftboat group who are testifying against him are easily as qualified to judge his character as were the people on his boat. Once again - swiftboats worked TOGETHER. Yards apart. So close that Kerry recounted one time when an explosion knocked their dog off his boat onto the deck of another boat.

Saying that these guys didn’t serve with him is like saying that fellow tank commanders in a four tank platoon would be in no position to judge one of their own because they weren’t in the tank with him.

59

To drag this thread back on topic briefly: These stories of who’s military service was what, they tend to buttress a pet theory of mine.

The major media organs in the US do not have an ideological bias. Consider the claims that Bush’s military service is low-scrutiny versus the attitude taken to Kerry. Consider further the general tenor of such organs as the Washington Times and Fox News.

No, the bias is not ideological. It is worse it is partisan. In other words there is no guiding statement of principle. The editors do not work to accomodate respect for a personal history of military service, a belief in a controlled budget or small government or any such thing. Instead the evidence is that the bias is plainly divided along party political lines.

60

Daily Howler goes into detail about CNN *burying * the Bush AWOL story, in fact.

Bolding in original. Click the links for more detail about CNN being as cowardly, or simply ratings-driven, as the rest.

Sam, what the hell do you mean by *different * AWOL charges? Is that what you’ve had to resort to now to avoid admitting you’ve been yanking stuff out of your butt all through this thread? Read the links before you say anything further on the subject. Do yourself a favor.

Like the idea that someone on a different boat around the riverbend knows as well what happened, and what character the skipper had, as those who were on the same boat under him? Yes, there are a few of Kerry’s command who disliked him. There is nobody who is always liked by everyone. But you have to consider his statements in context with those made by the great majority of them, whom you steadfastly refuse to discuss at all in what looks like an attempt to avoid explaining how you’ve concluded that they’re liars. That is what you’re saying; it can’t be avoided.