# 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:** 2
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/21 "2003-06-12T00:37:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > \*\*Sorry - posted that prematurely. > > [The patterns have not changed since 1976.](http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/mediawatch/1996/mw19960601p8.html) > > Regards, > Shodan \*\* Well then, that’s just ducky. In any event, can you clarify the Democrat = Liberal issue, because I just don’t get that. ---
**Author:** ![frithrah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ad7895/32.png) [@frithrah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/frithrah)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/22 "2003-06-12T00:38:53Z")
I’d side with the idea of the media being very conservative but we’re all going to have our opinions based on our political persuasions. Correspondents and newscasters are entitled to their opinion. What I think is far worse is the “Network”[film] syndrome. Like NBC is going to have harsh words for GE. I don’t care so much if news is left, right, or centrist. I think I’m smart enough to read between the lines. The real problem is that the media is MEEK! Where is Edward R Murrow. Why aren’t mics being shoved in politician’s faces? “WTF is up with the lack of evidence on WMD’s?” But no. Helen got sent to the back of the room. I better not try to be an investigative journalist. And it happens right down to the story on your local news about the school board. Don’t offend the Mayor. You might not get invited to that big country club event this year. It sucks. And I wouldn’t want the left to be treated with any less scrutiny. But couldn’t a reporter at least raise an eyebrow if not drop a jaw or two now and then? Grrrr. [/rant] ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/23 "2003-06-12T00:51:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas \* > \*\*damn liberal foxnews. damn liberal Mike Savage. damn liberal Rush. damn liberal talk radio. Damn liberal WSJ opinon page. Damn liberal Worldnetdaily. Damn liberal Ann Coulter. damn liberal Drudgereport. Damn Media blackout on Clinton’s impeachment. \*\* No, actually I was talking about NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, CNN, MS/NBC, The Washington Post, The New York Times, the major newspapers in Atlanta, Los Angeles, Detroit, Denver, Boston, Chicago, etc., etc. Anyway, you are repeating yourself. Savage and Limbaugh _are_ talk radio. See also **Jackmannii** ’s rather cogent response on how the mainstream media regard Internet news sources, and why. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas \* > \*\* > imagine conservative MRC saying people who don’t agree with them are liberal. Shocking! \*\* I don’t know what you are talking about. Are you saying that liberals **don’t** disagree with conservatives? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas \* > \*\* > That cite defines democrat as liberal and republican as conservative. by definition they are different, therefore the survey is meaningless. try again. > \*\* “By definition” Democrats aren’t liberal? “By definition” Republicans aren’t conservative? Again, I don’t know what you are trying to say. Anyway, you are mistaken. The cite said: > [@](#): > > 1. What is your political orientation? > > Democrat or liberal > Republican or conservative > Lean to Democrat/liberal > Lean to Republican/conservative Independent So, if you look carefully, you will see that they were including even those liberals who did not identify themselves as Democrats. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas \* > \*\* > isn’t most of Bias just Goldberg ranting incoherantly at Dan Rather and providing no cites at all for his claims? > \*\* No, it is not. Glad to clear that up for you. Bernard Goldberg was a news producer for CBS, as I mentioned. He described his personal experiences in that role, and made it clear that even to him, a self described liberal, bias in favor of liberal causes was clear and consistent. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tars Tarkas \* > \*\* > You have fialed to prove anything except conservatives are biased towards conservatives. Try again. \*\* Sorry, but you have “fialed” to produce much by way of coherent argument. If you can come up with anything stronger than “Is not!”, feel free to try again yourself. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![MrTuffPaws](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f475e1/32.png) [@MrTuffPaws](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrTuffPaws)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/24 "2003-06-12T01:00:49Z")
Well, currently, I find the US media biased towards the right. Look at the coverage of the Iraq war for starts. Did one US based news agency show a wide view shot of the SH statue being torn down in Baghdad? The only wide view that I have seen came from the BBC. The handful of people there at the time looked rather pathetic for the hype the US agencies gave it. Not to mention the “no” mention of the ones doing the tear down were Iraqi expatriates flow in by the US. Also look at how Afghanistan has simply disappeared from US mainstream media. The conditions in that country are horrid, but only a death of a western solider makes the news anymore. One more: the media is simply ignoring the facts of the Bush pushed tax cuts. Sadly, I have given up on US media. The BBC seems the only reliable source of news any more. Also sites like spinsanity help. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/25 "2003-06-12T01:02:45Z")
**Shodan** , party affiliations aside, could you actually cite some specific examples of CBS, NBC, etc. actually coloring or slanting the news in a “liberal” direction. It seems to me that some people just read way too much into the way Tom Brokaw raises an eyebrow. ---
**Author:** ![cmkeller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cmkeller/32/118_2.png) [@cmkeller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cmkeller)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/26 "2003-06-12T01:03:46Z")
Tars: > [@](#): > > isn’t most of Bias just Goldberg ranting incoherantly at Dan Rather and providing no cites at all for his claims? No, not even remotely. I’d love to hear where you heard this from. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 1:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/27 "2003-06-12T01:04:22Z")
I don’t know about the rest of your papers, but the Atlanta Journal and Constitution are definitely conservative in tone, the Journal more so than the Constitution, but still… Sometimes they run a column by Molly Ivins, that’s about it for liberalism. Mostly liberal voices are heard just for constrast. Hope your list of other metro papers isn’t as “accurate.” :dubious: ---
**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 12, 2003, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/28 "2003-06-12T01:07:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by frithrah \* > \*\*Correspondents and newscasters are entitled to their opinion(s). \*\* In clearly labeled editorials, or on their own time. Thanks for the mention, **Shodan** , but what I thought I was doing was illustrating a gross example of liberal spinning of what should have been straight news by the N.Y. Times (they released much the same biased story on both their Internet site and in the newspaper). ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/29 "2003-06-12T01:11:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > [The patterns have not changed since 1976.](http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/mediawatch/1996/mw19960601p8.html) We don’t know that by that citation. You’ve shifted the goal posts from “the media” to “White House correspondents” or “Washington reporters” or something. I suspect that there is a certain amount of truth to the notion that the people with notepads are a bit on the left of the American voter spectrum. However, when we factor in owners, editors, and controlling corporations, I suspect that the percent of “the media” goes back a lot closer to the center. (I also find it interesting that most of these analyses concentrate heavily (not exclusively) on the press, when, for almost 30 years, Joe Citizen has been ignoring the press for the TV when getting the news.) ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/30 "2003-06-12T01:40:56Z")
I guess it depends on your context. If you want to talk about big three network news than yes one could argue faithfully that the bias is liberal. If one would like to talk about the print media, then I also think the argument could be made that it is overrall left of center. If one were to talk about am radio, than one trying to be fair woudl say that overrall it tends to be pretty damn far right of center. In the past I think there was much more of a liberal bias to the media, but how does one say these things? It was a fair liberal bias. I guess that that would mean that it was a liberal bias that was aware of itself to a degree and served to correct itself. I remember growing up that the NY Times was a newspaper that was slightly left of center but who’s main agenda was to report the news faithfully, to be a chronicle of the times. 60 Minutes was a show that you could trust. It seems I’ve watched the NY Times go from being centrist and reportorial to being nuttilly left wing, and that trend shows no sign of decellerating. Now it seems to me that the Washington Post which is right of center actually does a fairer job of impartial reporting. The network news on the other hand seems to have become more truly centrist, with the exception of a few news magazines that are still lefty and Foxnews which is still righty. The internet is all over the spectrum. In conclusion, while I think there has been a legacy of a mild left wing bias in the media in the past, it wasn’t a problem. Today’s media seems to be pretty evenly balanced overrall but with quiet a few strongly and openly biased sources on all ends of the spectrum. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/31 "2003-06-12T01:45:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > And, note that Goldberg is a liberal. Yeah, right. And, I am a libertarian conservative. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jackmanni \* > The N.Y. Times had a typical presentation (“World’s View of U.S. Sours After Iraq War, Poll Finds”), focusing on changes in views since a year ago. Well, if you want anecdotes, I’ll give you anecdotes going the other way from the supposedly-liberal NY Times. [Here](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/10/politics/10ROAD.html) is an article from yesterday’s NY Times. Note that title “Bush to Prohibit Building Roads Inside Forests”. It is a great title but you have to read the article itself and gather facts from elsewhere to learn that what Bush has really done, as part of a legal settlement was re-instate the Clinton era rules but with enough loopholes to drive a Hummer through! On a more-highly researched note, [here](http://www.fair.org/international/iraq.html) is FAIR’s page of links to its pages on all the distortions in Iraq. Note that even before the war, all the major media organizations like NY Times, Washington Post, etc. were saying that the inspectors left Iraq after non-cooperation from Iraq which was accusing some of them of being spies for the U.S. (This was when they didn’t rewrite history more by just saying that Saddam kicked the inspectors out. [http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html](http://www.fair.org/extra/0210/inspectors.html) ) As it turns out, several months after the inspectors left, reports surfaced in many of these media outlets that in fact there were spies on the inspection team…i.e., these papers, citing both UN and U.S. government sources, determined that the accusations by Iraq were fact. And, yet, by 2003, they had become merely accusations by a crazy regime again ( [http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html](http://www.fair.org/activism/unscom-history.html) ). And, for those who believe Gore is a “liberal”, here are some links about how the press corps hounded Gore (probably not for ideological reasons but because they apparently just didn’t like him personally very much): [http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh080702.shtml](http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh080702.shtml) [http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/27/media/print.html](http://archive.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/27/media/print.html) [http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm?ID=3724&view=print](http://www.tompaine.com/feature.cfm?ID=3724&view=print) ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/32 "2003-06-12T01:50:20Z")
jshore: Well, in “Journeys with George” the proposition was put forth that Gore was not liked because he was standoffish and aloof and didn’t put in one on one face time with the print reporters. And, as a matter of personal opinion I don’t trust anything that FAIR does. IMO they have demonstrated that they are wrapped in their agenda. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/33 "2003-06-12T01:52:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\*We don’t know that by that citation. You’ve shifted the goal posts from “the media” to “White House correspondents” or “Washington reporters” or something. \*\* Wouldn’t you say that “Washington reporters” and “White House correspondents” are part of the media? How is that “shifting the goal posts”? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\* > I suspect that there is a certain amount of truth to the notion that the people with notepads are a bit on the left of the American voter spectrum. However, when we factor in owners, editors, and controlling corporations, I suspect that the percent of “the media” goes back a lot closer to the center. > \*\* You mentioned editors. One of my cites was of newspaper editors. If you want to talk owners, we can talk about Ted Turner. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\* > (I also find it interesting that most of these analyses concentrate heavily (not exclusively) on the press, when, for almost 30 years, Joe Citizen has been ignoring the press for the TV when getting the news.) \*\* See my cite of Walter Cronkite. We can also talk about Dan Rather, Bryant Gumbel, or Nina Totenberg. [Or a lot of other talking heads.](http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/nq/2002/nq20020415.html) Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 2:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/34 "2003-06-12T02:10:43Z")
> [@](#): > > Wouldn’t you say that “Washington reporters” and “White House correspondents” are part of the media? How is that “shifting the goal posts”? You have gone from 80% of the media (all types, all aspects, all venues, all positions within the media) to some anecdotally large number of reporters from a specific beat with a claim that the “patterns have not changed.” That is shifting the goalposts. Other than that, I generally agree with what **Scylla** has posted. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/35 "2003-06-12T02:15:34Z")
Usually, GD demands a supportable position, not merely anecdotal evidence. The problem with this debate is that the specifics are lacking in rigor; it’s almost impossble to define how bias is shown and to what degree it exists. The possibility of an actual proof being thus remote, I don’t feel bad in offering my own opinion, based on nothing but impression: The media has leaned left in the past. In recent years, I am seeing that trend lessen and even reverse. ---
**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 12, 2003, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/36 "2003-06-12T02:36:07Z")
What is it with people wanting me to register with the N.Y. Times lately? First **Collounsbury** , now **jshore**. A link to an actual article would be nice. Come to think of it, I could say the same to FAIR. Regarding U.N. inspections and spying, all they provided were a couple of mini-quotes and no links to actual articles. No stories, no context, no independent appraisal. On the other hand, I provided a link to a [full report by the Pew Research Center](http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/185.pdf), as well as the Times article online that selectively distorts the Pew poll’s findings. And I see zero explanations in rebuttal. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/37 "2003-06-12T03:03:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jackmannii \* > The [N.Y. Times](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/04/international/04POLL.html?ex=1055390400&en=d8ad7852c5e504f6&ei=5071&partner=CNN) had a typical presentation (“World’s View of U.S. Sours After Iraq War, Poll Finds”), focusing on changes in views since a year ago. > However, when you look at [Pew’s entire report](http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/185.pdf) (check out page 19), you find an aspect totally ignored by the Times and other major media - the fact that international favorable opinion of the U.S. **has dramatically improved** since we invaded Iraq, with increases in favorable opinion in a number of countries of 50-200% or more. B.F.D. While it’s quite true that favorable opinions of the U.S. have risen since March (i.e., before the war was begun and concluded), the very same page you cite makes it unmistakably clear that world opinion of the U.S. has fallen quite substantially since the summer of 2002 (when Bush was only dealing in rhetoric, not bombs), and it has fallen even more substantially since 1999/2000. The favorable rating in Great Britain, our most stalwart ally, has dropped from 83% (99-00) to 75% (summer 02) to 48% (March 03) to 70% (today). Germany went 78/61/25/45. That’s right, a majority of Germans have an unfavorable opinion of the United States, for probably the first time since 1944. France: 62/63/31/43 Spain: 50/–/14/38 Indonesia: 75/61/–/15 Turkey: 52/30/12/15 (oooh, big rebound there, huh?) While you have a point that the NYT failed to report the March-May post-war rebound, your own description of the Pew Report is every bit as biased as you claim for the Times. (And considering that the Pew Report page you cite itself leads with the assertion that our favorable ratings suck ass compared to 3 years ago, it ain’t that ridiculous of the Times to report the same thing.) Plus, this is the first time I’ve ever heard of the report, so I have no idea whether other mainstream outlets said about it. Plus plus, spare me the “I’m not a conservative!” response. ---
**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 12, 2003, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/38 "2003-06-12T03:49:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by minty green \* > \*\*While you have a point that the NYT failed to report the March-May post-war rebound, your own description of the Pew Report is every bit as biased as you claim for the Times. \*\* To address your problem with reading comprehension first, I suggested **this** in a prior post as a reasonable way to approach the story: "So the Times headline (“World’s View of U.S. Sours After Iraq War, Poll Finds”) is dead wrong. An accurate and balanced report on the Pew poll would have been headlined something like “World Opinion Looks More Favorably On The U.S. Since Invasion of Iraq”, _perhaps with a notable subheading indicating that our standing still remains below recent historical levels_. (italics added). We have had a great deal of reporting and commentary regarding foreign lack of support for the war with Iraq, demonstrations abroad, denunciations by many foreign leaders etc. Given this oft-reported climate of hostility to the war, it is both astounding and newsworthy that America’s standing in the world has apparently rebounded to this extent since the U.S. invaded Iraq. Pretending otherwise is foolish. \*\* > [@](#): > > Plus plus, spare me the “I’m not a conservative!” response. \*\* Oh, I know, having the temerity to question bullshit makes me the enemy. That’s quite a reversal for someone who used to show signs of independent thinking. Oh, and **jshore** , regarding one of your examples citing supposed right-wing bias in the N.Y. Times? You needn’t worry so about the Times supposedly kowtowing to the Bush Adminstration and its evasions on the “roadless rule”. There’s an editorial in today’s (Thursday’s) edition entitled “Whittling at Forest Protections” which goes into detail on the Administration’s efforts to seek loopholes in the rule, including an exemption for the Tongass National Forest in Alaska and paving the way for state governors to seek their own exemptions. To quote the Times, “A bipartisan group in the House has introduced legislation that would codify the Clinton roadless rule into law. There is similar legislation in the Senate. Both bills deserve approval before more damage is done to one of the country’s most useful environmental regulations.” ---
**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 12, 2003, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/39 "2003-06-12T03:58:21Z")
Correction: the editorial is in Wednesday’s edition. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/40 "2003-06-12T05:12:56Z")
> [@](#): > > you find an aspect totally ignored by the Times and other major media - the fact that international favorable opinion of the U.S. has dramatically improved since we invaded Iraq, with increases in favorable opinion in a number of countries of 50-200% or more. After looking at the actual Pew report, I’d have to say that your criticism of the NYT has some basis, but is very much overblown. Of the 18 places for which Pew had data over more than one year on the table you cited, only seven (all ostensible U.S. friends–not “the world”) were polled in March 2003. The general trend reported for two years is downward, with a few countries who are supposed to like us showing a post-war rebound. I think the Times should have noted that swing among our friends, but the reported trend is still downward for _all_ countries since last summer. The Pew report is _not_ basically about an upsurge in favorable attitudes toward the U.S.; the thrust of the report is a continued decline–just as the NYT reported. And, while the table shows a bit of a rebound among selected friendly nations, the comments regarding world-wide negative attitudes toward the U.S. that were printed in the NYT are taken directly from the opening comments of the Pew report, so it is not as if the NYT writer misread a table and made up his own incorrect analysis on the subject. In fact, the following quote from the NYT abstract comes perilously close to plagiarizing the Pew opening statement: > [@](#): > > war has widened rift between Americans and Western Europeans, further inflamed Muslim world, softened suppport for war against terrorism and weakened global backing for UN and NATO The rest of the NYT abstract comment regarding skepticism toward U.S. policies and President Bush and a weakening of support for the war on terror are also well attested in the text of the Pew report. Of course, even with these factoids, we are left with the question: is this “liberal” bias or “anti-administration” bias? (I suppose that it is handy to assume that all opposition to the administration is “liberal,” but in a country in which the Right is dominant, I keep seeing the center called “liberal” and “Left” and it certainly does not align with my perceptions of political positions.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201.md?page=3)