How do the Liberal media get away with pretending to be neutral?

Great Debates
41

For what it’s worth, I did a google search for “ultra conservative” and got like 13,000 hits. Obviously this doesn’t mean much, since we’re debating media bias not internet bias.

Nevertheless, assuming that you’d find a similar ratio in the New York Times, this is arguable evidence of media bias.

There was a suggestion above that the imbalance can be explained by the fact that conservatives are quoted more often than liberals. Honestly, this argument does not seem very credible to me. If I have a chance, I will look at the “FAIR” study, but frankly, after the “superbowl incident,” FAIR does not have much credibility with me.

42

IMHO, as a Moderate, I find the media in general to be slightly left of center.

I find the Murky to be slightly liberal politically, conservative on economic matters, and yes- quite libertartian’

Tell me more about the Cato inst. I want to debunk their anti-rent control “paper”.

43

and assuming that the we could take that ratio and extrapolate it to the human body, we could then determine that humans are exactly 4.3 times more ultra-conservative than ultra-liberal. If we give thesse terms fixed numbers;

ultraconservative=4
archconservative=3
conservative=2
moderate=1
liberal=0
archliberal=-1
ultraliberal=-2

we find that the average human is actually 37% more conservative than liberal. Hence, newspaper reporters actually are conservative.

44

It means more than you might think. Many of those hits lead back to mainstream media articles.

Of course, one can manipulate this type of search to serve one’s purposes. For instance, using the term “smug toad-like conservative” I came up with only 6 hits, as compared to 40 for “sanctimonious whiny liberal”. So I guess right-wingers really are meaner than lefties, by a nearly 7-1 margin (I picked up on this research technique from Al Franken in “Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot”).

But enough! As has been pointed out, wiser heads have done this topic to death. Let’s all declare victory, and move on to discussion of something really intelligent.

45

Jackmanii and lucwarm: I present you again with the words “externally verifiable.” Lather. Rinse. Repeat. Yes, FAIR is a partisan organization. No, this does not automatically invalidate the results of their research.

I don’t know if it’s possible for you to have missed my point any more strenuously. It’s my considered opinion that the far right has substantially more political influence in America than the far left–especially given the rise to power of the Christian Coalition. Therefore, there’s more reason and likelihood for reference to be made to so-called “ultra-conservatives” than to “ultra-liberals.” Opportunity for “redressing” doesn’t enter into it.

Let me also say that in doing a quick Lexis search on the terms, I noticed that many incidences of the word “ultra-conservative” came in reference to international politics or, in several cases, to sports–as in, “The Penguins’ ultra-conservative offense will have to find a way to score.” Yup, that’s definitive. :rolleyes:

I’d also agree with Daniel that evidence of ideological bias depends on (and varies with) not only the specific journalist, the specific editor, the specific organization, and even the specific media, but also the specific issues at hand. As has been pointed out in several threads–though not yet, I think, in this one–there was a survey done (yes, yes, by FAIR–oh, how will I regain my credibility?) of Washington-area journalists and editors which showed, as would be expected in people with upper-middle class incomes–that the respondents as a whole tended a bit more liberal than the general public on most social issues, and significantly more conservative than the general public on most economic issues. (Hey, look at that–“a bit” and “significantly” are potentially loaded terms, as well. The numbers, however, bear that divergence out.)

And lucwarm, oldscratch is right: What in the world does that Google search even begin to prove? The FAIR study takes about half a second to look at and assess, unless you think they’re so unreliable as to flat out fabricate their results. In which case this debate is truly pointless, 'cause your position wouldn’t be very tractable at all.

I repeat: to the extent that the national news media display a demonstrable bias, it’s toward preservation of the status quo. They’re also certainly more overtly secular than religious–which is, I know, a damnable, damnable thing. (!)

SNenc: Nice post. Of those you list, I’d say the WSJ and Fox News lean obviously to the right, and NPR (intermittent corporate slavishness and the Pacifica imbroglio aside) and the LA Times lean to the left. I’d say the Post and the Times tend Democratic but emphatically centrist, and I dunno about MSNBC and CNN.

Would Nightline count as an influential outlet? 'Cause I’ve got a study 'bout that one, too. :wink:

Daniel: The Cato Institute is a solidly libertarian think tank.

(Has anyone read On Bended Knees, or am I talkin’ at the wind, here?)

46

Apparently no one has. Maybe they don’t like liberal media bias in books :D.

I only watch The Daily Show for news and its extremely liberal so from my perception its 100% liberal on tv and fairly unpartisan logally on newspapers.

47

One could say the same about Accuracy in Media. But I would rather trust my own observations and those of people I respect, rather than organizations with obvious axes to grind.**

Nope. I just don’t buy what you’re selling.**

Not to mention ultra-conservative cancer therapy. But as I pointed out, many instances of “ultraconservative” and “archconservative” come back to mass media articles - in the United States (far more often than the corresponding antiliberal versions of these terms).

Slanted reporting revolts me, even when it’s my own biases that are being gratified. Perhaps if I were more of a hell-bent ideologue, I wouldn’t mind.**

No, just blowin’ it. :slight_smile:

48

Actually, I find that The Daily Show is nonpartisan. Of course, they have been going after Bush quite a bit lately, but he gives them a lot of material.

If you think that TV is 100% liberal, try The O’Reilly Factor. Tonight you missed a great explanation of how pro-choicers are insane zealots who completly ignore facts while pro-lifers always make sensible, fact-based decisions.

49

"If at age 20 you’re not a liberal, you’ve got no heart

If at age 40 you’re not a conservative, you’ve got no brains"

Winston Churchill
“A conspiracy exists to throw black kids out of school so they can become inmates to a growing number of prisons, that are being built for the purpose of providing jobs for white people.”

Rev. Jesse L Jackson Sr.
“I would think that, if you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that we would become communist.”

Jane Fonda, Michigan State University 1970
“Yes, we did produce a near perfect republic.
But will they keep it, in the enjoyment of plenty, lose the memory of freedom?
Material abundance without character is the surest way to destruction.”
Thomas Jefferson
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is “needed” before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents “interests, " I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.” (Barry Goldwater.)
“If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.” --Samuel Adams
"We can afford to differ on the currency, the tariff, and foreign policy; but we cannot afford to differ on the question of honesty if we expect our republic permanently to endure …
"Honesty is not so much a credit as an absolute prerequisite to efficient service to the public. Unless a man is honest, we have no right to keep him in public life; it matters not how brilliant his capacity
"The weakling and the coward cannot be saved by honesty alone; but without honesty, the brave and able man is merely a civic wild beast who should be hunted down by every lover of righteousness.
"No man who is corrupt, no man who condones corruption in others, can possibly do his duty by the community…
"‘Liar’ is just as ugly a word as ‘thief,’ because it implies the presence of just as ugly a sin in one case as in the other. If a man lies under oath or procures the lie of another under oath, if he perjures himself or suborns perjury, he is guilty under the statute law.
“Under the higher law, under the great law of morality and righteousness, he is precisely as guilty if, instead of lying in a court, he lies in a newspaper or on the stump; and in all probability, the evil effects of his conduct are infinitely more widespread and more pernicious.”

And we can say that this is true of all of our current politicians. The lie, the deception, the misrepresentation of the truth is what has us all in arms. If we could hear the truth and know that it is, in fact, true maybe we could agree on something but… it’s not in the cards.

To Be A Liberal

To be a liberal, you have to believe the AIDS virus is spreading due to a lack of funding.

To be a liberal, you have to be against capital punishment but for abortion on demand–in short, you support protecting the guilty and killing the innocent.

To be a liberal, you have to believe that a public school system that can’t teach 4th graders how to read is capable of teaching those same kids the subtleties of sex.

To be a liberal, you have to believe that trial lawyers are selfless heroes and doctors are overpaid, greedy, bad guys.

To be a liberal, you have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans are more of a threat than nuclear weapons in the hands of the Red Chinese.

To be a liberal, you have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical, documented changes in the brilliance of the Sun, and more affected by yuppies driving SUVs.

To be a liberal, you have to believe that gender roles are artificial but being gay is natural.

To be a liberal, you have to believe that the biggest threat to this country are those who believe morals, ethics, and family values are essential.

To be a liberal, you have to believe that punishment for a crime should depend on motive. Killing a person because you dislike them is worse than killing them because you want their money.

To be a liberal, you have to believe that business creates oppression and government creates prosperity.

To be a liberal, you have to believe that killing a child in the womb should be legal, but breaking an eagle’s egg should be criminal.

To be a liberal, you have to believe that good intentions are equal to actually accomplishing something.

To be a liberal, you have to believe that the government should provide for those who contribute the least and tax those who work hard and succeed.

To be a liberal, you have to believe that governmental laws and regulations are always the answer, never freedom and competition.

To be a liberal, you have to believe that art would not exist without federal funding.

To be a liberal, you have to believe the military, not corrupt politicians, start wars.

To be a liberal, you have to believe the NRA is bad, because of their support for certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good, because of their support for certain parts of the Constitution.

To be a liberal, you have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides aren’t.

To be a liberal, you have to believe that minorities are not capable of making it without your help and conservatives are racists because they believe everyone given opportunity can be an equal.

To be a liberal, you have to believe that cigarettes pose more danger to our kids and our society than illegal drugs.

Liberalism presently holds sway because it aggregates all that is weak, broken and ugly into a wholly self-interested, political constitutency:

· If you are lazy, it offers a handout.

· If you are stupid, it dumbs down your competition.

· If you are shallow, it offers false self-esteem.

· If you are confused, it says that certainty is the REAL confusion.

· If you are evil, it rewards the denial of guilt.

· If you are a liar, it offers “relative” truth.

· If you are a slave to sin, it calls your shackles “freedom”.

· If you are a coward, it offers security based on the sacrifice of others.

BTW the american TV media is, without question very liberal. To argue this is to argue that Abortion is not murder. It just doesn’t fly.

Pay attention the next time you watch any of the morning shows. Pay attention the next time you watch Peter/Dan/Oprah/Barbara.

What are they talking about?? It cetaintly ain’t conservative. Don’t fool yourself when you watch Katie/Bryant/Al. They aren’t conservative and don’t pretend to be.

In short, wake up.

50

Fuck, I wish this was in the pit so I could give it the response it deserves. Instead I’ll simply point out that at the straight dope we’re for fighting ignorance, not spreading it.
:wally:

51

…And if you post stuff like that, people will ignore your opinion, and likely ridicule you.

52

Likely you didn’t read it all.

It wasn’t all against libs and I am sure that there are as many negative conservative remarks to post.

Like, How can you oppose abortion but approve the Death Penalty?

OR

How can you claim integrity and honesty and support GW Bush at the same time?

The guy is a known drug offender who now is hard on drugs. I know, he is very hipocritical and should be called on it.

We all have our limits. I am still angry that Clinton wasn’t dragged around on his “I didn’t inhale” lie. Give me a break. In the military we must live by the rules that are a joke to politicians. It is life or death to us. If we do it we are put on public trial and are made into the embarrassment. We are kicked out.

Why is that? Since our leaders are held to a much lower standard.

Ask anyone who has served. They will tell you that they gave up everything for the right to serve their country. So you can say what you will but you cannot say that we are undeserving. We aren’t stupid because we respect the laws of our country. We are required to do so.

As is the President, and anyone who serves the president. As is anyone in congress. And anyone who serves us by taking their seat in our courts.

These are our laws and if anyone is to uphold these laws it should be us. If your congressman is caught bouncing checks then, please get rid of him. If your senator is caught ridiculing the law then he should be toast.

It is very simple and politics shouldn’t play a part in it. I just wish that everyone would pay attention to their local government and make them do the right thing. That is what matters.

Bill Clinton was a disgrace. If you paid attention you would know what I am talking about.

He used government transportation to fly his friends around the country.

He used the White House as a means of Fund Raising.

He used the White House as if it was his Love Motel.

A disgrace to our country. If you can’t see this then you have no loyalty to America. The President is supposed to be someone to look up too.

Not sneer at.

He is supposed to be better than us. Not an excuse for us to feel like we can all make mistakes.

He should be who we wished that we could be.

And I expect that GW Bush is held to this standard.

Forget the Media, Forget the hype and only look at what he is doing for us. If he is wrong then tell him. If he is doing a good job then let him know.

But accept no substitutes!! Get rid of him if he is unworthy and expect the best always.

Just don’t vote in another clown. We will need a winner next time.

We need the best. Let them know. Our country doesn’t need scandal. We need a good president. Honestly.

53

And this makes it any more relevant and accurate…how?

54

Incidentally, there are plenty of places for you to express your personal grudges about the government (regardless of their fact-content) that are not in the middle of an unrelated thread on media bias.

55

:confused:

gadarene, where did I claim that a Google search proves anything?

Here’s what I said:

“For what it’s worth, I did a google search for “ultra conservative” and got like 13,000 hits. Obviously this doesn’t mean much, since we’re debating media bias not internet bias.”

56

I searched the archives of the New York Times. Here’s the stats:

ultra conservative: 35 articles
ultra liberal: 9 articles
archconservative: 22 articles
archliberal: 3 articles

Obviously, the NY Times prefers ultra over arch. I can’t blame them, so do I.

PeeQueue

57

Jackmanii: Apologies for the tone of this post, but I am really, really not in the mood right now. In fact, this will probably be my only post of the day–external circumstances make it wise for me to exercise restraint and come back to all of this tomorrow, when I’m not boiling over with other things to such a degree.

Now then. What part of “externally verifiable” do you not understand? If I cite the FAIR study saying that, for example, 93 percent of Nightline guests were white, and 89 percent were male, and use that to demonstrate the lack of demographic diversity on television’s political spectrum, a valid response would NOT be to say, “Well, that’s FAIR for you,” because the numbers purport to be objectively determined and are available to anyone who wants to doublecheck them. You might well argue with their interpretation of the data–maybe saying, in this case, that Nightline’s guests simply reflect the makeup of those in positions of power, and that diversity as applied here is an essentially meaningless index–but it’s not intellectually honest to dismiss that data out of hand based simply on the organization that gathered it.

And when I offer my explanation of why “ultra-conservative” might be used more than “ultra-liberal,” instead of dismissing my argument with a flippant “I don’t buy what you’re selling”–without even quoting the relevant text, as if what I said was too inconsequential to bear repeating–why don’t you explain why you don’t consider it a possibility? Are you saying that the radical right doesn’t have more power and visibility in this country than the radical left? If so, then make that argument. Frankly, cryptic dismissals just don’t cut it for me.

Finally, the “ultra-conservative”/“ultra-liberal” thing is being tremendously overblown in the first place. Good points from both directions are falling by the wayside because y’all are choosing to focus on what seems to me to be a pretty damn insignificant bit of minutiae. Give it a rest, and let’s tackle other things–there have certainly been enough things in this thread and the other that can stand considered examination. Jesus.

lucwarm: I don’t think it says anything substantial about the Internet media either, but you are–as always–entitled to your opinion.

58

You are again confusing lack of agreement with lack of understanding. “Externally verifiable” is relatively meaningless. "Externally verified * by an unbiased source would have some impact.*

What on earth does that prove???**

See above. I’m not “missing your point”, I simply find it invalid. Learn the difference. As I’ve stated, pejorative terms like “ultraconservative” and “archconservative” find their way into reporting far more often than any liberal counterparts. You just have to open your ears.

I’m sorry if the prevailing media bias doesn’t fall far enough left to suit you. But you should be objecting to any bias.

59

Well, I’m pretty sure Gad does, in fact, understand the difference (since his last two posts indicate to all but the logic impaired that he’s asking for your reasons for disagreement on that point). But since he’s not going to be posting further today and I’m curious, would you mind explaining why you find Gad’s explanation for the more frequent occurence of the term “archconservative” an invalid point? Also, could you tell me why you consider that term perjorative? I mean, if you were to call me “ultraliberal”, I would correct you and state that I’m more of a moderate, but I wouldn’t feel insulted by the label.

60

And your evidence for this would be…you say-so?

The thing being here that all you have on your side in the way of facts is a few completely meaningless google searches, whereas you’ve been presented with hard data that you choose to ignore.

Now, if you had an issue with, say, their collection methods, that would be a vald criticism. Howwever, you have to actually have to elaborate on that to invalidate their data.

Burying your face in a pillow and shouting “I have faith that they are wrong! I don’t believe in FAIR! I don’t believe in FAIR!” doesn’t earn you any points in a debate; it only makes you look obstinate.