# On the liberal media. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 11, 2003, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201 "2003-06-11T21:06:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Tars\_Tarkas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tars\_Tarkas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tars_Tarkas)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2003, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/181 "2003-06-18T20:42:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > \*\*You’ve lost me here. I could have sworn that I addressed the distinction directly, pointing to a difference between straightforward partisans using the term in a relative manner, and ostensibly neutral sources. What have I missed? (And what do you mean “same scale”?) The point of the thread was media bias, and i am attempting to argue that the same people that are crying the loudest about unfair labeling of people in the media as conservative are unfairly labeling the media itself as liberal, both of the arguments are based on their interpetation of liberal and conservative. > [@](#): > > Well yes, obviously there are going to be people that don’t fit in the box exactly. In fact most people won’t fit in too neatly, if you look at them closely enough. What this would imply is that there are few if any true liberals or conservatives, making the entire discussion - and any other discussion of related subjects - completely meaningless. But of course, the answer is that despite all the exceptions and overlap, there is a rough validity to the use of these labels. As you well know, I rather suspect. Here too, I am not sure what your point is. Mostly to cause trouble, but i despise being set in a label. I considered myself a moderate Democrat for many years, before i was bombarded with the Liberal label by conservatives based solely on a single issue i was debating. Whenever i was arguing pro-gun or pro-death penalty, i was never called a “dirty conservative” unlike the “dirty liberal” label i now wear with pride out of spite. from that experience alone i feel safe to make the claim that ultra-liberal is used less paritally because many conservatives feel liberal itself is enough of an insult (despite how ineffective it is as an isult ont he intended target) > [@](#): > > The Libertarian Party occupies a niche between both parties, adopting some stances that appeal to the right and some that appeal to the left. If they were more successful, they might succeed in redefining the scale. But meanwhile they have been spectacularly unsuccessful in this country (with the notable exception of this message board). Libertarians, Federalists, Greens, and the ilk have many people who agree with their views but would never vote for a third party candidate for a variety of reasons. To conform to a simple conservative/liberal scale they would have to modify their beliefs to fit in with the views on the scale. (as many do anyway when deciding candidates from the major parties to vote for). > [@](#): > > Frankly, bringing up obscure groups like the Socialists and Libertarians in discussions of mainstream media bias seems to me like a diversionary tactic. As previous, there will always be people or groups that don’t fit in, and even the ones that do fit in might not fit in precisely, but the big picture is still true. (Hey, it’s a lot like the race issue 😉 ). When you hear the media describe Candidate A as the conservative candidate in a race, you have a good idea of what position he is _likely_ to have on a given issue, as compared to a candidate described as the liberal one. I think liberal would be more of a broad term. As i said in eariler posts, he could be socially liberal but be fiscally conservative, but with a standard liberal label, he bores you with votes for abortion and national parks creation, but surprises you with suddenly being for a huge tax cut and ease of tarrifs. Such a postion could be a candidate in either party, but would be called conservative in one and liberal in another. A better approach would be to ID terms to describe such a person (and the opposite) that was neither liberal or conservative which would more readily describe the belief structure. The media does seem to treat some people who are fiscally conservative but socially liberal as liberals, and big spenders yet socially conservative as conservative. The whole money issue is not considered part of the label at all, which it should in my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2003, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/182 "2003-06-18T20:46:05Z")
ISTM that Democrats in government and in the media generally use the term “ultra-conservative” to mean “very opposed to the Democratic position.” Racists and sexists are called “ultra-conservative,” since Democrats strongly oppose racism and sexism. But, they would also use that term for someone who strongly supports school vouchers, even though a majority of blacks support vouchers. I think they would use the same term for a too-passionate supporter of tort reform. ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2003, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/183 "2003-06-18T21:05:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas \* > The point of the thread was media bias, and i am attempting to argue that the same people that are crying the loudest about unfair labeling of people in the media as conservative are unfairly labeling the media itself as liberal, both of the arguments are based on their interpetation of liberal and conservative. By “the same people” do you mean people in this thread? It sounds rather like you mean Rush Limbaugh, who has not posted here to my knowledge. The argument made by people in this thread - or at least by me, anyway - is that the way to measure media bias is where the media fits on the spectrum of the US public. Whatever Rush Limbaugh says in not relevant to my argument. I may not be “crying the loudest”, but I happen to be the person you are interacting with here. > [@](#): > > Mostly to cause trouble, but i despise being set in a label. OK, but the discussion here is not about you personally. It is about the general tenor of the media, and as such must use generalities, which may not be valid in individual instances. > [@](#): > > Libertarians, Federalists, Greens, and the ilk have many people who agree with their views but would never vote for a third party candidate for a variety of reasons. To conform to a simple conservative/liberal scale they would have to modify their beliefs to fit in with the views on the scale. (as many do anyway when deciding candidates from the major parties to vote for). But as a practical matter, these are the people who are electing the various Republicans and Democrats to office. If there were enough of these people to have significant impact, the Republican and Democratic parties would look more like the Green or Libertarian parties than they do. Of course, there are many such people, as you say, but not nearly enough to render the broad use of terms like liberal and conservative meaningless. > [@](#): > > I think liberal would be more of a broad term. As i said in eariler posts, he could be socially liberal but be fiscally conservative, but with a standard liberal label, he bores you with votes for abortion and national parks creation, but surprises you with suddenly being for a huge tax cut and ease of tarrifs. Such a postion could be a candidate in either party, but would be called conservative in one and liberal in another. A better approach would be to ID terms to describe such a person (and the opposite) that was neither liberal or conservative which would more readily describe the belief structure. > > The media does seem to treat some people who are fiscally conservative but socially liberal as liberals, and big spenders yet socially conservative as conservative. The whole money issue is not considered part of the label at all, which it should in my opinion. Words mean what the people who use (or hear) them think they mean. It makes no difference what they should mean, what they used to mean, or any other measure. If people use liberal and conservative to indicate rough adherence to some set of political positions, we should be able to accept this meaning for purposes of discussions about such matters. ---
**Author:** ![Tars\_Tarkas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tars\_Tarkas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tars_Tarkas)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2003, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/184 "2003-06-18T21:55:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > \*\*By “the same people” do you mean people in this thread? It sounds rather like you mean Rush Limbaugh, who has not posted here to my knowledge. The argument made by people in this thread - or at least by me, anyway - is that the way to measure media bias is where the media fits on the spectrum of the US public. Whatever Rush Limbaugh says in not relevant to my argument. > > I may not be “crying the loudest”, but I happen to be the person you are interacting with here. \*\* well, right above you is **december** complaining about democrats defining conservative as whatever the flavor of the month is! Also, if you really want to run the 10% numbers, then you have to edge out the top 10% of the media as liberal, and then attack below that number. In certain media groups, you’d be hard pressed to find enough positions to fill the 10% slot (in fact, with talk radio, you’d have to include Bill O’Reilly as one of the top 10% of liberals!). But i would find it difficult to label the media at 10%, 10% and 80% just from the arguments over how liberal certain outlets are. and since the major media is compacted into just a few companies, you’d have to broadly define one whole corperation as liberal, one whole corperation as conservative, and say the rest should all be moderate. And i can easily argue that the media in its failure to report to us what US companies are doing overseas (i.e. child labor and slave wages), coupled with the CEO lovin’ that is grossly displayed in major papers (Ken Lay was treated as a prince until the scandel.), the media loves rich conservatives and rich conservative business practices. This is an issue that affects the real world much more than how someone is labeled. (especially since, once again, links have shown labeling is not nearly as widespread as reported here) > [@](#): > > OK, but the discussion here is not about you personally. It is about the general tenor of the media, and as such must use generalities, which may not be valid in individual instances.But as a practical matter, these are the people who are electing the various Republicans and Democrats to office. If there were enough of these people to have significant impact, the Republican and Democratic parties would look more like the Green or Libertarian parties than they do. Of course, there are many such people, as you say, but not nearly enough to render the broad use of terms like liberal and conservative meaningless.Words mean what the people who use (or hear) them think they mean. It makes no difference what they should mean, what they used to mean, or any other measure. If people use liberal and conservative to indicate rough adherence to some set of political positions, we should be able to accept this meaning for purposes of discussions about such matters. \*\* Fair enough, but as **december** above points out, they aren’t using the terms for rough adherences, they are using them for anyone who disagrees with them on a particular issue (much as i pointed out earlier with the opposite side). this is why i think the linear model of liberal/conservative is flawed and currupts the whole argument of a “liberal media” ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2003, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/185 "2003-06-18T21:58:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > > I did a Google news search on the term “ultraconservative”. 453 hits. > > I then did the same search on the term “ultraliberal”. Five hits. I just plugged these into google “news” tab and did the same thing and got the same numbers. However, then I actually went and looked at the top 10 links that came up for “ultraconservative”. Here is the breakdown: 1 article used it in discussing a community in the country of Jordan, and more in a social sense than a political one. 2 links were from media in Europe (and in one it appeared that “ultraconservative” was actually the name of a political party there). 1 was an editorial [in the Atlanta Constitution]. 1 was a paraphrase of a claim made by Senator Schumer that was very clearly expressing his views and not those of the writer. 1 was an article on the shuttle disaster, talking about “ultraconservative” in the sense of a “conservative estimate” (thus a positive and completely apolitical sense and it was a quote at any rate). 1 is from an editorial/analysis piece at the libertarian Tech Central Station website quoting / paraphrasing / ridiculing those on the Left. 1 is a quote that regards being very careful not to violate NCAA rules. 1 is a quote from a legislator who is complaining that he was characterized as “ultraconservative” by the local newspaper in which this article appears. [It is not clear if that original characterization was in an editorial piece or an article although I’d bet on the former personally.] 1 is an actual real use of the term “ultraconservative” in a news analysis article in the Boston Globe (characterizing the editor of the Lowell Sun Nespaper) profiling the political history of John Kerry. So, there you have it, out of the first 10 citings that came up, only 1 is a genuine use of the term by a reporter in the U.S. media characterizing someone’s political positions. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2003, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/186 "2003-06-18T22:17:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas \* > this-- is Helms, he was the person mentioned right before i said that in the original post. And the fact i’ve mentioned dozens of times that it was referring to Helms should also be a big clue. You do think Helms is an extreme conservative. It wasn’t clear. I didn’t understand it. Neither did others. Rather than getting testy, you should have just clearly re-stated what you meant. > [@](#): > > No it is not. Libewral Republicans get the shaft then. You can’t break down Conservative and liberal into Democrat and Republican. Sure you can. The fringe elements of republicans can be labelled conservative according to you. However, the fringe elements of the dems cannot? > [@](#): > > Libertairans i don’t count as extreme conservatives, just extreme. They are normally against drug laws, morality laws, instiutionalized religion, the military, the death penalty, and tough crime laws, all hallmarks of the conservatives. Libertairns have their own definiton off the chart. Yes, Libertarian != conservative. But, libertarians are to conservatives as greens are to liberals. Because libertarians and conservatives have a lot in common it was a fair comparison to your Nader example of an “extreme liberal”. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2003, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/187 "2003-06-18T22:50:36Z")
Here is a brief rundown of the next 20 “google news” hits for “ultraconservative”: 11 were hits from an AP wire story picked up by various U.S., Canadian, and U.K. outlets in which concerned the vote in Poland on entrance to the E.U. and in which this sentence appeared: > [@](#): > > EU opponents, a loose coalition of radical farmers and ultraconservative Catholics, argue that membership will cost the country jobs and erode its national identity. (By the way, this quote also reminds us that the word “radical” is often used as a characterization of those on the Left, although I have noticed a recent tendency for those on the Left to use it against those on the Right too.) Another 5 were hits to a story about Pakistan which used the term to describe the Islamic religious folks in a province there: > [@](#): > > Musharraf derided some of the steps taken in the ultraconservative North West Frontier Province, where the ruling Islamic alliance passed a bill instituting Shariah, or Islamic law last week. The other 4 used it in a similar sense to describe religious groups in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and apparently some Catholic group somewhere (I can’t get to that last week because it has expired). So, it looks like we are running 1 for 30 now. I think you get the idea. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2003, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/188 "2003-06-18T23:07:00Z")
By the way, if we look up “ultra-liberal” and “ultra-conservative” on the google news thing, we get 25 and 593, respectively. I suppose that we can conclude from this, the previous results, and the some of the logic in this thread that the majority trying to stuff a liberal agenda down our throats are almost equally likely to hyphenate or not hyphenate whereas those few who are trying to stuff a conservative agenda down our throats are 5 times as likely to hyphenate as not. 😉 Oh, and if you look up “radical” and “reactionary” then you get 5460 and 353 hits, respectively. Is this a sign that media is biased in the conservative direction. [Hint: The correct answer is NO; it is probably not an indication of much of anything beyond the fact that “radical” has a wider range of meaning and uses than “reactionary”.] ---
**Author:** ![Tars\_Tarkas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tars\_Tarkas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tars_Tarkas)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2003, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/189 "2003-06-18T23:25:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > \*\*You do think Helms is an extreme conservative. > > It wasn’t clear. I didn’t understand it. Neither did others. Rather than getting testy, you should have just clearly re-stated what you meant. \*\* since someone’s most common reply is “i don’t know what you mean” (in [this](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=141400&perpage=50&highlight=understand&pagenumber=4) thread he denied doing so, so i pointed out 8 examples from just 2 pages of a previous confrontation. 3rd post down) it is harder to discover when something is actually not as clear as it should be. But i did repeat several times that the question was answered. > [@](#): > > Sure you can. The fringe elements of republicans can be labelled conservative according to you. However, the fringe elements of the dems cannot? Republicans are more tolerant of excepting the fringe elements into the main rank (as long as they continue to get re-elected) > [@](#): > > Yes, Libertarian != conservative. But, libertarians are to conservatives as greens are to liberals. Because libertarians and conservatives have a lot in common it was a fair comparison to your Nader example of an “extreme liberal”. \*\* i still think their differences are much more gaping than the differences between Greens and Dems. So much so, that Libs should be in an entirely different category. Religious Fascists would be a better example of a Green comparison if you want to go outside party, but there is not really one operating in the US (besides a few idiot Klansmen). And i’d hesitate to include them with conservatives (which is partially why i didn’t refer to them earlier) ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2003, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/190 "2003-06-19T01:00:32Z")
If **jshore** wants to filter out the non-American references in his fervent googling over the term “ultraconservative”, I suggest trying “ultraconservative judge”. That one draws 1,720 hits to 323 for “ultraliberal judge” (and most references seem to be about American judges). “ultraconservative senator” yields 1,610 hits (339 for “ultraliberal senator”). There are similar striking margins in favor of references to “archconservative” (senator, congressman, judge, politician etc.) over “archliberal”. Oh, of course all this is totally (ssh!) meaningless. But it’s sort of fun. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2003, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/191 "2003-06-19T02:44:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas \* > \*\*since someone’s most common reply is “i don’t know what you mean” \*\* Please quit trying to make this personal. The reality is that you chose to make a point in a cryptic fashion. You could have said “I consider Jesse Helms an ultraconservative.” Or, you could have said “I consider Jesse Helms an ultraconservative because he supports confederate organizations.” But you didn’t – for reasons only known to you. People here can read your posts, but not your mind. When you post stuff that’s unclear, vague, ambiguous, or irrelevant, you run the risk that people will reply that they don’t understand your point. You might ask yourself whether the problem might really lie in the way you have chosen to express yourself. \*\* > [@](#): > > But i did repeat several times that the question was answered.\*\* So what? Instead of clarifying yourself, you chose to simply insist that you had already answered the question. You could have said something like “I already answered the question, although I concede my answer could have been clearer. What I meant was that I consider Jesse Helms a conservative.” But you chose not to – for reasons only known to you. And by the way, it appears that you still haven’t answered my earlier question: > [@](#): > > (1) Has anyone claimed in this thread that that there is a “giant liberal conspiracy”? > > (2) If yes, then where? > > (3) If no, then why did you say “we are claiming it is not a giant liberal media conspiracy to destroy the right”? Why won’t you concede that you were attacking a strawman? ---
**Author:** ![IzzyR](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/2acd7d/32.png) [@IzzyR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IzzyR)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2003, 1:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/192 "2003-06-19T13:05:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas \* > Also, if you really want to run the 10% numbers, then you have to edge out the top 10% of the media as liberal, and then attack below that number. In certain media groups, you’d be hard pressed to find enough positions to fill the 10% slot (in fact, with talk radio, you’d have to include Bill O’Reilly as one of the top 10% of liberals!). But i would find it difficult to label the media at 10%, 10% and 80% just from the arguments over how liberal certain outlets are. and since the major media is compacted into just a few companies, you’d have to broadly define one whole corperation as liberal, one whole corperation as conservative, and say the rest should all be moderate. The 10% number was an example, for illustrative purposes. I was trying to illustrate that - whatever the particular number is - you have to have a balanced and objective scale. The media itself is a spectrum much as the US population is. The question is how the media spectrum compares to the overall population. I and others would say it is skewed further to the left. One _indication_ of this is the comparison of “extreme” or “far” references. The imbalance here is an indication that on the media spectrum politicians are more apt to be on the extreme right end of the spectrum than they are on the public opinion spectrum (as indicated by the success of the “extremists” in winning elections. Again, all I was saying is that if you want to compare when the use of the term extremist is appropriate, you have to use the same percentage of the distribution from both ends of the scale (in contrast to what you were doing). I am not saying that 10% is a hard and fast number. (Nor have I made any claims about the media having a 10/80/10 breakdown - not sure where you picked that up from). > [@](#): > > And i can easily argue that the media in its failure to report to us what US companies are doing overseas (i.e. child labor and slave wages), coupled with the CEO lovin’ that is grossly displayed in major papers (Ken Lay was treated as a prince until the scandel.), the media loves rich conservatives and rich conservative business practices. This is an issue that affects the real world much more than how someone is labeled. (especially since, once again, links have shown labeling is not nearly as widespread as reported here) Well you could argue that but you would be engaging in more of the same - fighting a debate by redefining the terms. It is true that the conservative philosophy is more business friendly than the liberal one. But this does not imply that on an individual level conservatives are more apt to support corruption by CEOs than liberals (much as liberals would prefer to think otherwise). Ken Lay himself is evidence of this. It is not at all clear that the media have failed to report on what US corporations have done overseas - I seem to recall various reports about such issues. I think what you really mean is that the media have not harangued on it as much as certain liberals might prefer. But here again, you have to compare it to the public at large. Is there enough public interest to sustain a campaign about these issues? I think not. So the media might be more “conservative” in reporting about these types of corporate sins than you would prefer, but you can’t really make a case that they are more conservative than the public about these issues. > [@](#): > > Fair enough, but as **december** above points out, they aren’t using the terms for rough adherences, they are using them for anyone who disagrees with them on a particular issue (much as i pointed out earlier with the opposite side). this is why i think the linear model of liberal/conservative is flawed and currupts the whole argument of a “liberal media” No contradiction here. The term implies rough adherence. It can sometimes be used to for “anyone who disagrees” etc. The meaning of the term is unchanged. Again, the basic premise is that the media is, in sum, skewed to the left as compared to the overall population. Arguing over the precise meaning of the terms “liberal” and such is obscuring the point. ---
**Author:** ![Debaser](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/3da27b/32.png) [@Debaser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Debaser)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2003, 2:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/193 "2003-06-19T14:06:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas \* > Republicans are more tolerant of excepting the fringe elements into the main rank (as long as they continue to get re-elected) I would argue that in fact the exact opposite is true. To be successful with the masses, the Republicans have abandoned the more fringe elements of what they stand for. Bush keeps away from the abortion issue. His tax cuts have been small. He hasn’t cut the budget as much as I expected him to. Meanwhile the Democrats choose Nancy Pelosi as thier leader. She is certainly in the 10% fringe that we are talking about. She is on the extreme liberal side of the party and she is now leading it. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2003, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/194 "2003-06-19T15:33:21Z")
Hi, **jshore** - My very superficial Google search was certainly not meant to be rigorous, and thanks for doing the analysis. Although I will point out that if your one-in-thirty of valid uses of the terms “ultraliberal” vs. “ultraconservative” holds true for all the references, use of “ultraconservative” outnumbers “ultraliberal” by about 18 to 1. There have been more than one analysis done to compare labeling of conservatives vs. liberals, and the consistent result is that the media tends to label conservatives far more than liberals. I can try to dig up the cites if you like. I did discover a few examples of the sort of thing I am talking about, along with lots of other interesting quotes. Such as - > [@](#): > > Aaron Brown: “Some **conservatives** jumped on [Taliban fighter John] Walker, saying he is a product of cultural liberalism – the California kind – helping to turn an impressionable kid against his own country. Joining us from Salinas, California, **one of those conservatives, Shelby Steele** of the Hoover Institution. Mr. Steele wrote a provocative article the other day in the Wall Street Journal – a column in the Journal. And here in New York,\*\* a > columnist\*\* who thinks Mr. Steele is making an awfully broad generalization: Richard Cohen of the Washington Post. It’s nice to have both of you here. Mr. Steele.” > > Shelby Steele: “First of all, let me interrupt you just a minute. Is Richard Cohen a liberal?” > > Brown: “Yeah, Richard Cohen’s a liberal. I think he would say that, wouldn’t he?” > > Richard Cohen: “On this issue.” > > Brown: “Okay. Everyone is now branded, I guess.” > > Steele: “Great. If I’m going to be, everybody’s going to be.” > > ``` > – Exchange on CNN’s NewsNight, December 18. > > ``` > [@](#): > > Bush seems to be following the advice of Bill Kristol, the **arch-neoconservative** who has been using his Weekly Standard magazine to chide Bush for being too soft on Saddam Hussein…Kristol, suspected of playing **puppeteer** to a number of hawkish officials in the Bush Pentagon and National Security Council, appears to have added the **marionette-in-chief to** his act.” > – Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank in his > “White House Notebook” column, August 20. And now for something completely different - some nice, objective reporting on the complex issues that we face. > [@](#): > > Anchor Daryn Kagan: “You know what, Kate? Shame on all of them. They’re sitting there playing politics in Washington. I know we have a lot of viewers at home, a lot of older people who their simple, simple request is just to be able to afford the drugs that they need.” > > Reporter Kate Snow: “Yeah, they will say it’s a lot more complicated than that. And, you know, that there, again, there are policy differences and it’s hard to get agreement when you don’t agree on how to do it. That’s what they’ll say to that, but I think you’re right, that I think a lot of seniors are going to be disappointed.” > > Kagan: “Tell that to our grandmothers and grandfathers and uncles and aunts who are just trying to kind of put together the bottom line.” > – Exchange July 31 during CNN’s “Breaking News” > coverage of the end of Senate efforts to create a new prescription drug entitlement for senior citizens. But don’t worry, the media is quite sure their background and experience does not lead to bias - > [@](#): > > “If I were biased, I don’t believe I would have gotten the job.” > – George Stephanopoulos to Newsday’s Verne Gay as quoted in a June 19 story after he was named host of ABC’s This Week. Of course, we always have PBS there for balance - > [@](#): > > “The entire federal government – the Congress, the executive, the courts – is united behind a **right-wing** agenda for which George W. Bush believes he now has a mandate. That agenda includes the power of the state to force pregnant women to surrender control over their own lives. It includes using the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich. > It includes giving corporations a free hand to eviscerate the environment and control the regulatory agencies meant to hold them accountable. And it includes secrecy on a scale you cannot imagine. > > “Above all, it means judges with a political agenda appointed for life. If you like the Supreme Court that put George W. Bush in the White House, you will swoon over what’s coming. And if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture… > > “So it’s a heady time in Washington, a heady time for piety, profits and military power, all joined at the hip by ideology and money. Don’t forget the money…Republicans out-raised Democrats by $184 million and they came up with the big prize: monopoly control of the American government and the power of the state to turn their **radical** ideology into the law of the land. Quite a bargain at any price.” > – Bill Moyers’ commentary at the end of his PBS show Now on November 8, the Friday after Republicans won control of the Senate in midterm elections. I can’t find anywhere where Moyers referred to Democrats having “monopoly control” of the government after the elections of 1992. Foreign policy is always an area where the media is scrupulously fair and accurate to Republicans - > [@](#): > > “Tonight, why the U.S. is deliberately going back on its word in front of the rest of the world.” > – MSNBC’s Brian Williams promoting an upcoming item on Bush’s decision to withdraw from the ABM treaty, on the > December 13 News with Brian Williams. > > “Today President Bush deliberately broke a treaty with Russia, as he promised he would – the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that bars both countries from building a missile defense system. Without a defense, both sides are vulnerable, and that’s a deterrent. But President Bush says times and threats have changed.” > – NBC’s Tom Brokaw introducing a Dec. 13 Nightly > News story about the U.S. giving Russia the required six months advance notice that we would withdraw from the treaty. > [@](#): > > “We begin with the news from the White House that President Bush knew that al Qaeda was planning to hijack a U.S. airliner and he knew it before September the 11th.” > – Judy Woodruff on CNN’s NewsNight, May 15. This one isn’t really about political bias, but it is too deliciously stupid to miss: > [@](#): > > “Iraqi citizens are preparing to go to the polls to decide whether Hussein stays in office.” > – Preview of an October 14 segment on CNN’s > American Morning with Paula Zahn posted on CNN’s Web site. Yeah, that election was a nail-biter all right. [All this and plenty more here.](http://www.mediaresearch.org/notablequotables/bestof/2002/bestquote.asp) Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Tars\_Tarkas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tars\_Tarkas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tars_Tarkas)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2003, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/195 "2003-06-19T22:27:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Debaser \* > I would argue that in fact the exact opposite is true. > > To be successful with the masses, the Republicans have abandoned the more fringe elements of what they stand for. Bush keeps away from the abortion issue. Bush quietly told to surpreme court to leave alone a case dealing with abortion, and is a supporter of banning stem cell research and partial birth abortions. He has not left the issue alone. He has not proposed an overthrow of Roe vs. Wade, that is true, but the administration’s stance on abortion is hardly up for debate. > [@](#): > > His tax cuts have been small. Not by his work. Snowe, Voinavech, and the Dems deserve the credit for chopping down the huge tax cuts. > [@](#): > > He hasn’t cut the budget as much as I expected him to. Once you get the pot it is hard to put the lid back on. A better arguement for your side would be that Bush has actually expanded the federal government and it’s powers, the opposite of what his party stands for. > [@](#): > > Meanwhile the Democrats choose Nancy Pelosi as thier leader. She is certainly in the 10% fringe that we are talking about. She is on the extreme liberal side of the party and she is now leading it. \*\* Tom Delay would make a good counter to her, since he is a crazy fool as well. he [tells poor people they ain’t getting a tax break](http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030610/ap_on_go_co/congress_taxes_8), tried to redistrict his home state so repbulicans would get more seats (then helped get the federal governemtn involved in hunting down the texas legislatures), called unions that demand basic labor rights [“undermining national security”](http://www.iupat.org/PoliticalAction/jawoped.html). Bush is just what Clinton was, a moderate. and the Media, like it spun clinton as a Liberal, is spinning Bush as a conservative. But you don’t see Bush running from Bob Jones university, for example. They wait until someone becomes an embarassment to them (like Dachell did) before they do something about the looney fringe. democrats picking Pelosi is more of a reaction of trying new tactics because running the center wasn’t working. Plus when your party has as few good leaders as that party does, you pick them where you can. (granted, they still are running around like chickens with their heads cut off, but at least in a straight line now) ---
**Author:** ![Tars\_Tarkas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tars\_Tarkas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tars_Tarkas)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2003, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/196 "2003-06-19T22:39:45Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by IzzyR \* > [@](#): > > It is not at all clear that the media have failed to report on what US corporations have done overseas - I seem to recall various reports about such issues. I think what you really mean is that the media have not harangued on it as much as certain liberals might prefer. They hardly address it at all. Only when it affects a celebrity (Kathi Lee) or riots occur in said country do we here about it, and then usually not in an expose of conditions but as a throwaway line explaining why Argentina is burning. > [@](#): > > But here again, you have to compare it to the public at large. Is there enough public interest to sustain a campaign about these issues? I think not. So the media might be more “conservative” in reporting about these types of corporate sins than you would prefer, but you can’t really make a case that they are more conservative than the public about these issues. Well, then if this arguement follows, then there must be a public interest for the media to be liberally biased, otherwise it wouldn’t be profitable! And you can make a case, it follows the same logic as the “ultraconservative” line of thought, if you look for “factory conditions” reports you find little in the mainstream while “corporate earnings” gets their own network (MSNBC) > [@](#): > > Again, the basic premise is that the media is, in sum, skewed to the left as compared to the overall population. Arguing over the precise meaning of the terms “liberal” and such is obscuring the point. \*\* if the point is the media is liberal, then isn’t it a good idea to define what liberal is? otherwise i could say the media is orangutaun because i’m using a different definition of orangutaun than you are using… Plus if you want to prove an overall media bias you have to look at the entire media, and can’t simply ignore the business section. ---
**Author:** ![Tars\_Tarkas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Tars\_Tarkas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tars_Tarkas)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2003, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/197 "2003-06-19T22:47:51Z")
Check out this “liberal” media story! [Story](http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89895,00.html) > [@](#): > > Time magazine reports that Gore wants to establish what he calls “a counterbalance to the fifth column of conservative media.” > … > > One observer opined that one can only hope “it’s more interesting to watch than his debating style.” Fair and Balanced! 😉 (just be glad this isn’t [New Zealand](http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33161)!) ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2003, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/198 "2003-06-19T23:59:12Z")
Good of **Tars** to remind us of this comment by Al Gore last year. Merriam-Webster online defines “fifth column” as _“a group of secret sympathizers or supporters of an enemy that engage in espionage or sabotage within defense lines or national borders.”_ Al got off relatively lightly for making this profoundly stupid and inflammatory remark. Imagine the uproar if a failed Republican presidential candidate had referred to left-wing voices in the major media as traitors or spies for enemies of the United States. ---
**Author:** ![bbonden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecb155/32.png) [@bbonden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bbonden)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/199 "2003-06-20T01:23:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas \* > **Bush quietly told to surpreme court to leave alone a case dealing with abortion** I would love a cite for this, or at least an explanation of what in the samhell this is about. And why would the Supreme Court care? (On the other hand, if this concerns a cert petition in which the administration filed a brief, I don’t see an issue.) ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2003, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/200 "2003-06-20T12:18:44Z")
I would also like a cite. Also, what were you intending to prove with the Fox News story about Al Gore wanting to start a news network? I thought you had posted earlier about how biased towards conservatives Fox was. You did notice, did you not, that about half the article to which you linked was about Murdoch and his expansion of his news operation - and that an opponent of that expansion was quoted directly? Regards, Shodan [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201.md?page=11)