I’ve never seen any evidence that the networks or CNN are particularly leftist…certainly not to the extent that Fox is right. I know that’s been the conservative line for years but i’ve never seen it.
Can anyone actually provide a cite or an example of the networks slanting a story to the left? From where I’m sitting they were unbelievably brutal to Clinton/Gore and have been outright fawning towards Bush.
An example, or three, would be the way they still address Clinton as President but refer to President Bush as Bush.
Another psychological game they play is how they will open a story about a Republican plan/bill with a comment such as they are at it again and through in a few rolleyes.
Of course there is the gun control bit that that ExTank already mentioned.
Do they?
It seems to me that they’ve often referred to Clinton as Clinton, and Bush as President.
Can you support this claim?
It’s completely proper to address or introduce a former president with the title “President”.
Also, for both current and former Presidents, it’s common to use the title and name at the beginning of an article, and revert to the name alone in subsequent references:
“President Bush announced plans today…”. and later in the article, “Asked for a comment, Bush said…”
A friend of mine pointed out an interesting thing: Fox News expends most of its energy attacking the opposition to the ruling government!
Just watch it and take note for your self.
[sarcasm]
Yeah, lets see here, I wrote it down somewhere…Ahhhhh. On October 27th, at 4:20, NPR said… Sorry No cite[/sarcasm]
Next time I,m scanning the news, I’ll check a box that says right or left, maybe I am taking notice as the condition F.U.S mentioned but I do not believe that. I do believe it is done out of disrespect.
I just went to cnn.com and did a cite search on “President Bush”. The first three stories yielded:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/04/abortion.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/08/elec04.prez.dean.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/03/mgrind.hot.monday/index.html
I then repeated the search, using the phrase “President Clinton”. Top three stories:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ASIANOW/south/03/20/clinton.bangladesh/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/14/clinton.cnn/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/06/20/clinton.transcript/index.html
All six stories follow the pattern I describe, of attaching the title in the first mention, and the surname alone in subsequent references.
None of them failed to refer to President Bush without the title in the first mention.
None of them referred to President Clinton by title after the first mention.
(Disclaimer: this is hardly scientific, and it’s just a single site).
I can think of one way to make it a little more scientific. Someone could argue with your results by pointing out that if you search for “President Bush” then you will only find articles where he is in fact referred to as “President Bush”. This really doesn’t refute the claim that they often refer to him only as “Bush”. I did 2 searches, one for “Bush” and one for “Clinton”.
I only looked at the first page of each result but anyone is free to go further. For Bush, all of the articles that were actually about President Bush (as opposed to “a Bush-advisor”, or Jeb Bush) follow F. U. S’s pattern except for one or two that also referred to him as “President Bush” once or twice further on in the article. For Clinton, of the articles that were actually about former President Clinton (as opposed to Hillary or “the Clinton Whitehouse”) many followed the pattern, except that they referred to him as “former President Clinton”, some referred to him only as “Clinton” or “Bill Clinton” and one or two used the word “President” only further into the article. So this seems to fit F. U. S’s pattern except that Bush, as the current President, receives more deference than Clinton.
If I can throw more anecdotal evidence into the mix, it seems to me that NBC, CBS, and ABC have both a left- and a right-wing bias: those items which are actually reported will tend to have a left-wing bias, but there is a right-wing bias in determining which stories to pursue. I recall various sources (usually left-wing) claiming that the news divisions at the Big 3 kowtowed to their “corporate masters” in that they downplayed (or omitted altogether) stories which might offend either sponsors or the controlling company.
I remember David Letterman used to snipe at GE (and apparently got chastised for it) in much the same way Groening snipes at Fox and Rupert Murdoch in The Simpsons.
Maximum: I never stated:
I paraphrased Diane Rehm of National Public Radio, and said I liked the way she put it. I accept her statement not as a factual truth in an objective sense (even though I accept it personally subjectively), but as a plausible explanation for a condition I observed and subjectively interpreted.
Most assuredly not! Leave the interpretation (objective truth, inasmuch as humanly possible) of news (data) to qualified experts; the reporters should just report events, the human condition, as it is, without any “spin” upon it to influence the experts or the electorate. Of course, this desire on my part is a fantasy; I can only hope that someone will honestly attempt it, and achieve some level of success in doing so. The “interpreters” of events and conditions should remain somewhat insulated in an attempt to retain some objectivity, so as they don’t go off half-cocked full of “good intentions” to right every wrong in the world, perceived or otherwise.
Reporters may have the best first-hand acces to data on events and the human condition; that in no way indicates that reporters, as a group, are best-equipped to interpret said data and advise on possible courses of corrective action. Reporters are generally trained observers; gatherers, IOW. Not consumers (analyzers and interpreters).
You do realize that “Two Sides To Every Coin” is an expression, yes? Not meant to represent the limit of permutations of any given event or issue, etc.,?
As far as “the christian right” being a contributor to the polarized nature of the American political lanscape, well, to use another idiom, “It Takes Two To Tango.” In my experience, the “progressive left” doesn’t help things at all, either. Having been called a “murdering motherfucker” while being the victim of aggravated assaulted for supporting the right to keep and bear arms, having never lifted a hand against or ever having threatend a law-abiding citizen with a firearm, you might understand if I feel somewhat put-upon as a reasonable and moderate person by all of the venomous and untruthful “facts” about guns and gun owners.
I take your point about “truth relativism,” with the caveat that it is a two-edged sword; too much or too little of it is just as bad. If the right (religious-type) has too little, it can arguably be said that the left may have too much. One leads to unilateralism, the other leads to passive inactivity. Ironically, being strategically placed fairly center-ish (meaning I can get my ass whupped by both sides), I see the hypocrisy of both left and right as they progress through their respective “truth” spectrums.
As usual, the “truth” lies somewhere in between.
Besides, if one buys into the argument of truth relativism to any degree, then the more diverse interpretation of events, the more and different angles of “spin,” then the scientists, politicians and the electorate will have more diverse points-of-view from which to analyze those events and formulate opinions, theories, and national courses-of-action.
Because formulating opinions, theories and national courses-of-action from a too-narrow point-of-view leads to the u-word: unilateralism.
And look where that’s gotten us in the “War on Terror.”