Actually you’re arguing application of the law; that both FOXNews and NPR should be subject to the same “test”. You’re not arguing that because FOXNews isn’t biased, NPR isn’t biased, or some other factual determination. Which is why this thread is so incredibly stupid.
Congratulations - you now understand what it is like debating liberal media bias on the SDMB.
Evidence of liberal media bias are dismissed as anecdotal. Studies of liberal media bias are dismissed because they come from conservative organizations. Confessions of liberal media bias are dismissed because - well, because THERE IS NO BIAS! The RIGHT WING has a STRANGLEHOLD on the media, and EVERYBODY KNOWS IT, AND ANYONE WHO DENIES IT IS WRONGWRONGWRONG!
Besides, Bush lied about Iraq.
Regards,
Shodan
Indulge me for a second and answer a question, if you would. Is FOXNews biased, yes or no?
Except for that is not the reason I, or the other people I know who listen to NPR do so. We listen becuase it is the rare place to find information without spiteful commentary. We listen because we can hear about international events that are not covered by the other news sources. We listen because the news is targeted towards a more intelligent audience with a longer attention span. We listen because they mentioned that Michael Jackson was arrested, and then that he got off, and that was IT.
If you want to say that being intelligent, global, and assuming a higher level of listener awareness is liberal, then sure: NPR is liberally biased. But then the network and cable news seems to be idiot biased, so I don’t care which politcal side they dress to. We aren’t even going to talk about local news.
I would be delighted - if you answer a question first.
Is the media in the US, apart from Fox News and AM radio, generally biased to the liberal side, or not?
Regards,
Shodan
No. If you have actual evidence to the contrary, I’d be more than willing to listen.
Please point me to the organized compilation of examples of bias by NPR that you or Bricker or anyone posted to the other thread so that we might gauge the magnitude of the evidence. Otherwise, “this one time there was a story which I think shaded the issue in this way” is hardly comparable. Do you have any such list, compiled by anyone, conservative, liberal or whig? If they are valid, you will have my attention.
I would answer no. I think cries of liberal bias in the media is a favorite conservative rallying cry and it probably once was true but no longer. Certainly examples of liberal bias may be found so understand I am talking about generalities here. As near as I can tell reporters tend to lean left. But, editors and the corporations they work for tend to be decidedly right leaning. Editors and the editors’ bosses trump the lowly reporter everytime. The tone is set and the reporter will generally tend to prefer protecting his/her job than stand on some principle and get fired (Rupert Murdoch fired 25% of the reporters working for the New York Post after he took it over IIRC).
Ok, then I will ask a follow-up. Do you believe that Fox News is biased generally to the right? And if so, based on what evidence?
Regards,
Shodan
PS - In answer to your original question, yes.
Liberal bias? No. Conservative bias? No. The US media takes whatever side gets it the most money. If that means giving news a liberal spin then that’s what it does. If it can make money (get ratings) spinning conservative then that’s the way it goes. Fox news is pretty consistently biased to the right as filling this niche is making it wealthy. It is possible that the other networks are more consistently biased to the left, but from where I stand it looks like they play both sides in order to maximize profit.
NPR is more complicated. Being a publicly funded, not for profit organization it is closer to being not biased than most other news sources. I get the impression that the bias at NPR is similar to the bias one would experience on a university campus: the professors may be overwhelmingly liberal but usually they teach their subject without bias and only rarely let their politics spill over into their lessons (this has been my experience). NPR reporters are what conservatives would call ivory tower liberals and what I would call well educated 
.
The above is IMO, YMMV.
I really don’t have an opinion on this but it seems to me that one way you could objectively measure bias at least for newspapers is to look at whom they endorsed for President in the last few elections.
Well, if you answered my original question that Yes, Fox News is biased, why are you asking me if I believe it too and based on what evidence? If there is enough evidence out there to convince even you that Fox News is biased, wouldn’t it stand to reason that I would agree, for many of the same reasons (in addition to all the ones stated in this thread). Other than celebrating the wonderful meeting of the minds we share on this one issue, why would you ask that?
Do your arms get sore hanging from that cross all day? This is really pretty silly. You came in here to say that and started making demands before you’d answer the simplest questions.
Although in fact, you’re right. This is exactly what it’s like debating liberal bias. One side presents nothing except Bernie Goldberg and then gets all huffy when people ask for more; meanwhile Hentor provides some documented facts (and yes, also a list from a ‘progressive’ group; if there are problems with those facts their should be somebody debunking them out there). And then you’re still asking people to acknowledge the ‘liberal bias’ at other networks without providing similar data.
Also, wasn’t there a thread here sometime back about Fox News staffers being caught editing wire stories, for example changing “suicide bombers” to their preferred “homicide bombers,” to bring them in line with network policy?
Provide me with some stats - stats that aren’t like Goldberg’s, hideously out of context - to show the networks are biased. I know journalists tend to be liberal. Show me the bias in action, for fuck’s sake. I don’t recall anybody actually doing that.
There are many better ways to measure that, since endorsements are done only by the editorial board and are one-off. A long-term analysis of coverage is better.
On the evidence, no.
If there was any kind of monolithic liberal bias in the US media, you would not be able to turn on a TV set, read a newspaper or a magazine, or listen to the radio without hearing about the Downing Street memos. The very small amount of play this story has gotten in broadcast media is ample evidence that there’s a CONSERVATIVE bias in the media, because this story is “the smoking gun” on Iraq, there’s not doubt about that.
I recognize the limitations of that measure, but it is the least subjective approach that I can think of. I’m not claiming that it would be definitive, but it’s a good piece of evidence in building your case one way or the other.
Not sure how helpful this measure is as I have no idea if you can assume that an endorsement equates to a paper’s overall leanings and editorial policies. But, FWIW:
Note: The above link details which papers went with who. In Chicago, for instance, the Sun Times went with Kerry and the Tribune went with Bush. No surprises there as the Sun Times has always been considered the more liberal rag to the Tribune’s more conservative leanings.
This is starting to look like an argument over how wet water is.
No, it is not a good piece of evidence. It’s a separate issue. The editorial board of a paper can endorse one candidate or another without producing biased coverage, and choosing one candidate over the other does not indicate that your paper is biased in his favor. Biased coverage would be much more influential, I think. An endorsement is just a short opinion piece, and it runs the day before the election.
Sorry, print media don’t count. They’re only useful for getting stories noticed by the broadcast media.
I’m going to have to disagree with that. If Fox News is peddling itself as a news source, it has an obligation to be objective. People form opinions and make political decisions on the basis of information they receive from the news media. And so it is troubling that, for example, Fox viewers are more likely than NPR listeners to believe false things about Iraq (like, for example, that WMDs were found–sorry, I don’t have the cite for this, but maybe someone else has it ready at hand?). By the same token, NPR has the same obligation–perhaps a greater obligation because, as you point out, it is a taxpayer-supported institution. Journalists have moral obligations.