# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/61 "2003-06-12T18:02:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > The media themselves are rather upfront about their own biases: > > [Everybody knows that there’s a liberal, that there’s a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents. - Walter Cronkite]([http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/MediaBiasBasics.html#IN](http://secure.mediaresearch.org/news/MediaBiasBasics.html#IN) THEIR OWN WORDS:) LOL! As evidence of liberal media bias, I see this one line quote all over webpages which use this to show that Walter Cronkite has clearly admitted a liberal bias in the media. If you read the full quote it is apparent that Cronkite was presenting this as a common belief, not his own. > [@](#): > > Everybody knows that there’s a liberal, that there’s a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents…Anybody who has to live with the people, who covers police stations, covers county courts, brought up that way, has to have a degree of humanity that people who do not have that exposure don’t have, and **some people interpret that to be liberal. It’s not a liberal, it’s humanitarian and that’s a vastly different thing.** Emphasis mine. I love how some conservatives are more than happy to use misleading quotes out of context to support their argurment of a liberal media. :rolleyes: ---
**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, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/62 "2003-06-12T18:15:07Z")
_“Anybody who has to live with the people, who covers police stations, covers county courts, brought up that way, has to have a degree of humanity that people who do not have that exposure don’t have…”_ Which explains why cops and prosecutors are so liberal. What self-serving bullshit. Not one of Walter’s finer moments. “Anybody who has to live with the people”. (barf) ---
**Author:** ![akrako1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c77e96/32.png) [@akrako1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/akrako1)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/63 "2003-06-12T19:03:34Z")
Check out the following link. It describes how 10 Media conglomerates owns nearly all media. I can’t see how a reporter could be honestly liberal if he is enslaved to a monster corporation. And when there’s links to defense contractors, one needs not wonder which direction the bias leans… [http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html](http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html) ---
**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, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/64 "2003-06-12T19:15:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by rsa \* > \*\*LOL! As evidence of liberal media bias, I see this one line quote all over webpages which use this to show that Walter Cronkite has clearly admitted a liberal bias in the media. > > If you read the full quote it is apparent that Cronkite was presenting this as a common belief, not his own. > > Emphasis mine. > > I love how some conservatives are more than happy to use misleading quotes out of context to support their argurment of a liberal media. :rolleyes: \*\* Which is a pretty good example of what I mentioned earlier. Media types don’t think they are biased; they think they are right. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jshore \* > \*\* > Nowhere does it say that these groups are the ones that were relied upon for the data in the study (which actually pretty much speaks for itself) or to determine whether it was balanced or not. > \*\* Nor did I say that FAIR had relied for their data on the partisan groups mentioned. The groups mentioned endorsed the study, which would imply AFAIK that they considered it accurate or valid. Which is what i **did** say. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Godless Skeptic \* > \*\* > ABC/NBC/CBS may have employed people who voted democrat but no honesdt person can actually look at the newscasts of people like Dan Rather adn the like and say they were being less than fair in their news reporting. > \*\* Funny you should mention Dan Rather. Lots of honest people have said exactly that. Funny you should mention Dan Rather. > **[Newsmax.com - Breaking news from around the globe](https://www.newsmax.com)** > > Newsmax.com reports today’s news headlines, live news stream, news videos from Americans and global readers > seeking the latest in current events, politics, U.S., world news, health, finance, and more. > [@](#): > > “If we could be one-hundredth as great as you and Hillary Rodham Clinton have been in the White House, we’d take it right now and walk away winners. … Tell Mrs. Clinton we respect her and we’re pulling for her.” (To President Clinton, via satellite, at a CBS affiliates meeting, referencing new co-anchor Connie Chung to the “Evening News,” May 27, 1993) We? Feel free to find any quote from Gunga Dan about Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan that is comparably gushy. > [@](#): > > “Republicans kill the bill to clean up sleazy political fund-raising. The business of dirty campaign money will stay business as usual. … Good evening. Legislation to reform shady big-money > campaign fund-raising is dead in Congress. Republican opponents in the Senate killed it today.” (CBS Evening News, Feb. 26, 1998) Or contrast, if you like, Mr. Rather’s spin on the occasion of Gore announcing a vice-Presidential pick: > [@](#): > > "Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore officially introduced his history-making running mate today, Senator Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. > > History-making because Lieberman is of Jewish heritage and faith. The two started running right away. In their first joint appearance they gave a preview of the Gore-Lieberman fight-back, come-back strategy. Their message: They represent the future, not the past, and they are the ticket of high moral standards most in tune with real mainstream America." - August 8, 2000. As opposed to how he spun the Republican choice: > [@](#): > > "In the presidential campaign, the official announcement and first photo-op today of Republican George Bush and his running mate Richard Cheney. > > Democrats were quick to portray the ticket as quote ‘two Texas oilmen’ because Cheney was chief of a big Dallas-based oil supply conglomerate. They also blast Cheney’s voting record in Congress as again, quote, ‘outside the American mainstream’ because of Cheney’s votes against the Equal Rights for Women Amendment, against a woman’s right to choose abortion – against abortion as Cheney prefers to put it – and Cheney’s votes against gun control. > > Republicans see it all differently, most of them hailing Bush’s choice and Cheney’s experience." — July 25, 2000. [http://www.mediaresearch.org/projects/rather20th/welcome.asp](http://www.mediaresearch.org/projects/rather20th/welcome.asp) So the Democrats get a free plug, while the Republicans get a repetition of what the Democrats want you to think about them. Contrast also how he was careful to characterize Republicans during the post-election turmoil, but not Democrats. [http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a4cd3b31dff.htm](http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a4cd3b31dff.htm) Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![sqweels](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f19dbf/32.png) [@sqweels](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sqweels)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/65 "2003-06-12T19:46:56Z")
Tom: > [@](#): > > 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 Tars: > [@](#): > > liberal referrs to anyone they disagree with. Moderate is not in their vocabluary. Amen to that. Here we are sifting for tiny nuggets of bias while taking no notice of the _elephant_ in the room. Conservatism is extremely, undeniably biased. How can we determine possible bias in the media with this viewpoint dominating the discussion? “Liberal” and “Left” are two different things, and “liberal bias” is a near-oxymoron. The extent to which it isn’t is not something that the blunt instrument of conservatism is suited to determine. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/66 "2003-06-12T19:48:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by akrako1 \* > \*\*Check out the following link. It describes how 10 Media conglomerates owns nearly all media. I can’t see how a reporter could be honestly liberal if he is enslaved to a monster corporation. And when there’s links to defense contractors, one needs not wonder which direction the bias leans… > > [http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html](http://www.thenation.com/special/bigten.html) \*\* By and large these businesses are in it for the money. Nor are they all conservative. E.g., the top people in Disney are liberal, but they broadcast Rush Limbaugh, who’s ultra-conservative, because he makes money for them. Note that the New York Times has influence beyond its size, because a lot of other media tends to follow their lead. OTOH some of these big media companies are involved in entertainment, so they don’t have much political impact one way or the other. Size isn’t all there is. Perhaps the two most influential opinion leaders in the country are Limbaugh on the right and the New York Times on the left. Neither one is in the Nation’s Top Ten list. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 7:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/67 "2003-06-12T19:54:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sqweels \* > Here we are sifting for tiny nuggets of bias while taking no notice of the _elephant_ in the room. Conservatism is extremely, undeniably biased. How can we determine possible bias in the media with this viewpoint dominating the discussion? Yes, we each think we’re just right. You may consider Stalin to be a centrist, while I find Attila the Hun to be right in the middle. But, we can put our own views aside and debate whether the media tend to be to the left of the general populace. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/68 "2003-06-12T20:48:13Z")
I have a master’s degree in journalism and I used to be a newspaper reporter, for a couple of years. I can attest that reporters dream of doing what Woodward and Bernstein did: exposing corruption to the light of day, bringing down the mighty with nothing but your pen and the truth. In short, playing Jack the Giant-Killer. For a reporter, that’s glory, that’s achievement. Now, this is a “liberal” bias in the sense that it involves going after people in high positions of power – be they politicians or business executives or religious leaders. Of course, for this purpose a Democratic president is just as juicy a target as a Republican one. The conservative bias of the media is just as real, however, and much more powerful. It is based on the simple fact that reporters are not their own masters. Most of them work for media conglomerates which are owned by still larger conglomerates. Personally, I never had a story killed because it might piss off some business interest, but I was just doing small-town news coverage; the only people I was ever in a position to piss off were local civic leaders. In the higher reaches of the profession, however – well, I don’t ever expect NBC News to run a story exposing misconduct by General Electric, which owns NBC. And I wouldn’t expect any other network to do it either – you know, interlocking directorates, golfing buddies, etc. It’s not that the press and media tell lies. Usually their bias is expressed by simply ignoring certain things. ---
**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, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/69 "2003-06-12T21:26:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > > Feel free to find any quote from Gunga Dan about Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan that is comparably gushy. Well, how about a gushy comment about Bush himself shortly after September 11th ( [http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2001/cyb20010918.asp#1](http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2001/cyb20010918.asp#1) ): > [@](#): > > Dan Rather praised President Bush as “Giuliani-esque” for saying, “Osama: Dead or alive.” Later on Monday’s Late Show he volunteered for the war effort: “George Bush is the President. He makes the decisions and…wherever he wants me to line up, just tell me where.” ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2003, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/70 "2003-06-12T21:34:15Z")
There’s an extensive, extensive web site devoted to Dan Rather’s bias. [http://www.ratherbiased.com/](http://www.ratherbiased.com/) ---
**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, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/71 "2003-06-12T21:38:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Shodan \* > [http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/23/163106.shtml](http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/23/163106.shtml) > … > [http://www.mediaresearch.org/projects/rather20th/welcome.asp](http://www.mediaresearch.org/projects/rather20th/welcome.asp) > … > [http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a4cd3b31dff.htm](http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a4cd3b31dff.htm) What you have from these links mainly are some quotes taken out of context by such well-respected sources who wouldn’t possibly bias things to their point-of-view, such as NewsMax, Media Research, and Free Republic! I really don’t see how the quotes prove much at all. Most of the quotes tend to be pretty inoccuous in context…You just have to take their word for it that, say, this was the typical thing Dan said about the Gore-Lieberman ticket and this is the typical thing he said about the Bush-Cheney ticket. ---
**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, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/72 "2003-06-12T21:51:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by BrainGlutton \* > \*\*In the higher reaches of the profession, however – well, I don’t ever expect NBC News to run a story exposing misconduct by General Electric, which owns NBC. And I wouldn’t expect any other network to do it either – you know, interlocking directorates, golfing buddies, etc. It’s not that the press and media tell lies. Usually their bias is expressed by simply ignoring certain things. \*\* Very important point worthy of being repeated in bold. And, along these lines, [here](http://www.projectcensored.org/) is the Project Censored website. ---
**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 12, 2003, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/73 "2003-06-12T22:01:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bricker \* > \*\*Tars: > > Can yuo give me some real-life examples of politicians you would consider liberal Republicans, within the meaning you mention above – that is, faced with a survey that said: “I am a Democrat/liberal or a Republican/conservative,” can you name some people that you believe would be stymied in their choice? > \*\* Note, the below is just based on partial stances, since where you are liberal or conservative at varies, but in general (off the top of my head): Liberal Republicans: John McCain, Richard Riordan, (Olympia Snowe and George Voinovich i’d call moderate at best, but more liberal than the rank and file) Conservative Democrats: Byrd, Leiberman (called a Republican lite) I’m sure there are dozens more, but i don’t have time to go over a list of congressmen right now (maybe later, and then that might even turn into a new thread) [this PAC](http://www.govnotgod.org/updates/updateprint.asp?ID=32) claims 60(!) Liberal Republicans in the House. > [@](#): > > While I grant that the parties do not divide themselves neatly into two areas, for the purposes of this discussion, which is about supposed media bias, I can’t imagine that the bias divides neatly either. So what qualities does a Democrat have, and what qualities does a liberal have? What are the defining characteristics of each? In general, Democrats are for a larger government and Republicans are for a smaller one. The scope of which varies and blurs in the middle. IMO, there are at least 2 main sections for conservatism/moderate/liberalism, social and fiscal. You can be fiscally conservative but be for abortion/affirmative action/anti-no flag burning, and still get branded a liberal, While tax and spenders who oppose abortion and affirmative action get labeled as conservative. both sides (ultra conservative republicans especially, followed by ultra liberal Democrats) claim those in the middle are frauds and not real Republicans/Democrats, as they get blurred by Party Rhetoric vs. Party History. A long time ago, republicans were the Liberals fighting against the establishment. Liberal and Conservative has changed over time, and equating one exclusively with a particular party shortchanges the diversity found in said party. America is more diverse than a place where a standard line drawn in the middle divides people into one of two camps. I get called a liberal here often, and like most liberals i’m pro-death penalty, pro-gun, pro-stop taxing cigarettes…wait a minute, those aren’t liberal values! But left in a situation where i vote democrat constantly, i am forced to be considered a liberal based on that alone. I actually think i am a moderate to conservative Democrat (and on some issues very conservative), but get called a dirty pinko liberal enough by the far right i’ve taken to refering to myself as such as a matter of pride. But i wouldn’t answer that on a survey, just during a political debate, since some neocons seem to think i will become all insulted when called such, it is fun to screw with them and get happy. I really don’t care since it is just an arbitrary term that has a definition broad enough i can be both liberal and conservative, and if it is something i disagree with the guy with enough for him to call me a liberal, he is wrong on the issue anyway. **Shodan** > [@](#): > > These are the people who claim that their surveys are balanced and accurate. Why? Because they have been told this by unimpeachable sources - like Greenpeace, Ralph Nader, the Fund for a Feminist Majority, and UC-Berkeley I find it funny you’d post this then later link to a bunch of ultra conservative rags trying to prove media is biased. You’ve still only proved that there are conservative journalists and that quotes can be taken out of context. Try again. (or, don’t, since you are doing more harm to your side than good). and i read your “cites,” they were obviously written by former sitcom writers pretending to be conservatives because no one can be that dumb and funny at the same time. ---
**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, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/74 "2003-06-12T22:16:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > \*\*Yes, we each think we’re just right. You may consider Stalin to be a centrist, while I find Attila the Hun to be right in the middle. > > But, we can put our own views aside and debate whether the media tend to be to the left of the general populace. \*\* [**_"No one can terroize a whole nation, unless we all are his accomplices"_ – Edward R. Murrow**](http://www.takebackthemedia.com/idioteque.html) ---
**Author:** ![lucwarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e19adc/32.png) [@lucwarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lucwarm)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/75 "2003-06-13T00:08:52Z")
One measure of media bias that has been pointed out is the tendency to describe conservative politicians as “far right” or “ultra-conservative” much more frequently than liberal politicians are described as “far left” or “ultra-liberal” ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/76 "2003-06-13T00:24:22Z")
It’s fun watching folks deny a phenomenon even the leadership at many media outlets themselves recognize. Consider [this memo](http://www.laobserved.com/carrollmemo.html) sent out L.A. Times editor John Carroll on May 22, 2003: > [@](#): > > To: SectionEds > Subject: Credibility/abortion > > I’m concerned about the perception—and the occasional reality—that the Times is a liberal, “politically correct” newspaper. Generally speaking, this is an inaccurate view, but occasionally we prove our critics right. We did so today with the front-page story on the bill in Texas that would require abortion doctors to counsel patients that they may be risking breast cancer. > > The apparent bias of the writer and/or the desk reveals itself in the third paragraph, which characterizes such bills in Texas and elsewhere as requiring “so-called counseling of patients.” I don’t think people on the anti-abortion side would consider it “so-called,” a phrase that is loaded with derision. > > The story makes a strong case that the link between abortion and breast cancer is widely discounted among researchers, but I wondered as I read it whether somewhere there might exist some credible scientist who believes in it. > > Such a person makes no appearance in the story’s lengthy passage about the scientific issue. We do quote one of the sponsors of the bill, noting that he “has a professional background in property management.” Seldom will you read a cheaper shot than this. Why, if this is germane, wouldn’t we point to legislators on the other side who are similarly bereft of scientific credentials? > > It is not until the last three paragraphs of the story that we finally surface a professor of biology and endocrinology who believes the abortion/cancer connection is valid. But do we quote him as to why he believes this? No. We quote his political views. > > Apparently the scientific argument for the anti-abortion side is so absurd that we don’t need to waste our readers’ time with it. > > The reason I’m sending this note to all section editors is that I want everyone to understand how serious I am about purging all political bias from our coverage. We may happen to live in a political atmosphere that is suffused with liberal values (and is unreflective of the nation as a whole), but we are not going to push a liberal agenda in the news pages of the Times. > > I’m no expert on abortion, but I know enough to believe that it presents a profound philosophical, religious and scientific question, and I respect people on both sides of the debate. A newspaper that is intelligent and fair-minded will do the same. > > Let me know if you’d like to discuss this. > > John FWIW, I’ve seen this memo reproduced in enough places to believe it’s the real deal. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/77 "2003-06-13T00:41:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > It’s fun watching folks deny a phenomenon even the leadership at many media outlets themselves recognize. > > … (1) I have pointed out that surveys do find reporters more liberal than the general public on social issues such as abortion (which is not surprising since views on issues like these probably tend to correlate strongly with things like education and broadness of your travels and such). However, this is not true on economic issues. (2) The fact that this editor thinks there was a liberal bias here is not sufficient evidence that there was in fact one. I don’t happen to know what John Carroll’s own biases are or whether there is any credible scientific evidence on the side of the abortion/ breast cancer link. [Would you argue, for example, that an article about evolution / creation politics has to quote a lot from the side of scientists who believe in creationism?] ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/78 "2003-06-13T00:44:45Z")
Nor has it been established that the LA _Times_ is representative of the media as a group. ---
**Author:** ![frithrah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ad7895/32.png) [@frithrah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/frithrah)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/79 "2003-06-13T01:02:11Z")
[quote] \*\*It is not until the last three paragraphs of the story that we finally surface a professor of biology and endocrinology who believes the abortion/cancer connection is valid. But do we quote him as to why he believes this? No. We quote his political views. Apparently the scientific argument for the anti-abortion side is so absurd that we don’t need to waste our readers’ time with it. \*\* [quote] Huh? Why is there a connection between a differing scientific opinion and where he stands on the abortion issue? Is this to imply that “liberal” doctors would suppress evidence of causation between abortion and cancer? Or that pro life doctors would do the opposite? If the article is about research in this field, the politics of the physicians doing studies should be left out of it completely. Provide the consensus of the scientific community. If there are studies showing results to the contrary, include them. The politics of those doing the study shouldn’t be an issue. If it is, then an entirely new journalistic effort needs to be pursued to show the doc’s lack of ethical integrity. All I see going on here is that the editor is making it a point to not let a scientific report to take place without introducing the right wings abortion ethics into the story. And it is exactly this type of top down control that forces journalism to adopt a right wing agenda. ---
**Author:** ![frithrah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ad7895/32.png) [@frithrah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/frithrah)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2003, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201/80 "2003-06-13T01:08:17Z")
Apparently the scientific argument for the anti-abortion side is so absurd that we don’t need to waste our readers’ time with it. Okay, I put my foot in my mouth. I still think the editor’s tone comes across as agenda rather than scientific balance. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/on-the-liberal-media/181201.md?page=5)