JAG, please take the time to read the thread I cited above. Thanks. 
Shhhh… don’t bring prior evidence to the contrary into this. I’m trying to make my point here.
OK, National Public Radio, the New York Times, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, the Washington Post, and both of my local papers (Minneapolis Star-Tribune and the St.Paul Pioneer Press - the Minneapolis Star-Tribune rather blatently so) are liberal. So are most entertainment shows on broadcast TV. So are many movies and virtually all prominent actors and actresses.
Gary Trudeau is accusing Bush of cocaine abuse based on no evidence at all, for heaven’s sake.
Hilary channels the spirit of Eleanor Roosevelt; it’s no big deal. Nancy Reagan goes to an astrologer and it is a sign that the country is being run by spooks.
Gore violates federal law by raising campaign funds on federal property, and he is still treated as if he were credible on campaign finance reform.
Bush Sr. breaks a campaign promise not to raise taxes, and he is driven from office. Clinton lies under oath and finishes his second term as if nothing had happened.
Clarence Thomas is falsely accused of sexual harassment; he is a monster. Clinton is truthfully accused of sexual harassment, perjures himself about it, and feminists support him because he is pro-choice.
Just wait. Bush will be elected, and all those press people who were making pious pronouncements about how the President deserves some privacy and as long as the economy is doing well, it doesn’t matter, and his private life is his own business, will be working 24/7 to find or manufacture some scandal and get him impeached to balance their books with the Republicans.
Shodan: On Bended Knee: The Press and the Reagan Presidency by Mark Hertsgaard. I’ve given you this cite several times now, on a couple of different threads. You’ve managed to persistently ignore it. Please check it out before you rail about the liberal bias of network news.
Oh, and here’s the list of large dailies with consistently progressive editorial columns:
The Madison Capital Times
The Minneapolis Star-Tribune
The Los Angeles Times
The Boston Globe
The San Jose Mercury News
The San Francisco Chronicle
That’s about it.
Most newspapers endorse the Republican candidate for President. That’s no different this year.
Do your homework on this stuff, for goodness sake!
JAG: Funny. 
…and this contradicts my point how?
Correlation doesn’t equal causation. Just because the mass media outlets are located in places which are less conservative doesn’t mean that the mass media outlets made those places less conservative. In fact, given the ubiquitous nature of the mass media nationally, I’m not sure what your point was in the first place.
re: the Larry Flynt abortion thing
Why is it that when Flynt has dirt on Bush, he has credibility, yet when Drudge has dirt on Clinton he’s dismissed as a wacko extremist gossip?
And, no, I hold no illusions. I am sure the same would occur if roles were reversed.
I guess your whole take on which way the “media” leans depends on where YOU lean. For instance, when a conservative complains about media bias, he ignores outlets such as Rush Limbaugh. Similar happenings with liberal people… they REMEMBER Rush Limbaugh, because they disagree with him.
A person is inclined to remember unpleasant experiences more than pleasant ones, I think. If you hear a news report that seems to contradict the basis for your political beliefs, it’s much easier to say “They’re biased against me” than to say “Hey, I might be wrong about this.”
I hope I make sense… if not, just ask and I’ll try to clarify.
I think that Rush Limbaugh being republican would hurt more than it helps:)
Though one thing about this thread. Im sure the media coverage on Bush’s 25 year old crimes. While ignoring Gores recent fundraising crimes(dont quote me on that:))
Now I can’t really say much about the news or entertainment since I almost never watch it, but all of what ive seen has either been very liberal or independent. (IE the daily show being my independent and its bias is to get you to not vote. While my experience with liberal has been all the stuff that ive read linked from what people have posted on here. Definately a strong unreasonable liberal vibe in the forums.
Are these the same press people who released the transcripts of Lewinski’s testimony so that we could all bask in the President’s privacy while reading about the details of his Oral Sex? Are these also the same press people who worked 24/7 to find some scandal to get Clinton impeached?
That’s the beauty of being vague:)
I tried to make it clear that the point wasn’t being offered as proof. However, even you seem to admit that there is a correlation. It could be that the mass media influences it’s immediate surroundings more than other places, or that they reflect the views of the people where they are located. Or there could be no connection at all. Or…you could even deny a liberal bias to the news and think I’m crazy.
The bottom line is that when I look at the EC map, the only places I see going strongly for Gore are the places where the mass media is located.
Hmmm, Freedom2, once again you may have causation turned around. It could be argued that Gore is winning in areas with concentrated mass media because there is a more open flow and marketplace of ideas. People have better and more access to all of the facts and have made more informed decisions. The EC disparities are hardly evidence that the media told people to be pro-Gore.
On a side note, I work for a government relations firm in Tennessee. Everyone I’ve met who knows Al Gore on a personal and/or professional level, conservatives included, have said remarkable things about his personality, integrity, and professionalism (much to my amazement). I have no idea exactly why or how he has utterly failed in communicating this to the general public (including myself).
I think I have been quite clear I am making NO claims of cause and effect either way.
I was only pointing out an interesting observation. I think it could argued many different ways.
I think it was the “bottom line” bit that threw me off. Understood and seconded.
Brill’s Content ran a cover article on dubya’s relation to the media a couple months back.
The synopsis is that Dubya has a naturally gregarious person, and makes an effort to be freindly and accessible to media types (among others). He’ll sit in the back of the plane with reporters, ask 'em about their hobbies, etc. Not spinning–just creating a relationship. And he will make himself very availible for interviews, etc.
Gore, on the other is a standoffish, all-business type. Interviews must be scheduled, aides present, prepared statement, you stay in your cabin and I’ll stay in mine.
Reporters live for the sense of being inside. Make them feel like they have some sort of exclusive information, or special access, and they’ll love you. Tell them that “We’ll have a press release availible for all of you in an hour” and they’ll hate you.
I haven’t had time to read all the way through the link to the previous discussion, so let me just say this. NationalJournal.com – a very objective source – tallied the use of pejorative terms to describe both Democrats/liberals and Republicans/conservatives. They found that, on average, the media attached a pejorative term (hardline, partisan, etc.) to the Republicans/conservatives anywhere from 1.5 to 4 times more often than they did to Democrats/liberals.
Draw your own conclusions.