# The Right and its persecution complex. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 25, 2005, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864 "2005-10-25T19:38:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/101 "2005-10-29T20:56:01Z")
**Sam** , an excellent post. I wish it were mine…but frankly, I just don’t have the patience. Congratulations on a job well done and well said. **kaylaspop** , you ascribe too much to my ambitions. Like I’ve said, I’m merely stating my opinions and, on occasion, blowing off steam. As far as the invisible audience that I’m supposed to be so cunningly cultivating, I’m afraid that the subtle and subliminal attempts at manipulating it that you see exist only in your own mind. I am flattered however, that you would suspect me of such complex machinations. However, this perceived deviousness is a two-edged sword and it perhaps speaks more of your manipulative inclinations than it does of mine. **Harborwolf** , I’m disappointed. You expressed sincere mystification as to the perception and/or nature of liberal media bias and a desire to “get to the bottom of it.” I provided not only examples of my own as to how the media handles the news in such a way that the result is to cast a favorable light on the left and a negative light on the right. And given that much of what I described you had heard from me before, I recommended an excellent book written by a leftist but thoroughly objective reporter and long time employee of CBS. Your response was indeed to “blow me off”, even though you state this wasn’t your intent. If you truly wanted to know why the media is perceived (or more accurately, recognized) as being biased, you would be interested in giving Goldberg’s book a read, even if for no other reason than to add to your alleged desire to understand where the claim of liberal media bias comes from. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/102 "2005-10-29T21:01:22Z")
Sorry about the odd sentence structure and omissions in the first paragraph to **Harborwolf**. Editing is sometimes not my friend. I meant to say, I provided not only examples of my own as to how the media handles the news in such a way that the result is to cast a favorable light on the left and a negative light on the right, but, given that much of what I described you had heard from me before, I also recommended an excellent book written by a leftist but thoroughly objective reporter and long time employee of CBS. Etc. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/103 "2005-10-29T21:16:14Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Your response was indeed to “blow me off”, even though you state this wasn’t your intent. If you truly wanted to know why the media is perceived (or more accurately, recognized) as being biased, you would be interested in giving Goldberg’s book a read, even if for no other reason than to add to your alleged desire to understand where the claim of liberal media bias comes from. Too late **Starving Artist** , Goldberg has been discussed before and there are examples that he made many mistakes or purposely mislead the readers: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4917989&postcount=48](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=4917989&postcount=48) > [@jshore](#): > > First, to say that MRC leans to the right is an understatement. They are a right-wing media watchdog group. Their whole point is to search for supposed left-wing bias. They are not some sort of spinsanity. > > And much of the MRC stuff is all cherry-picked and taken out of context. Al Franken has a great story about a time he was on a show with Goldberg and he asked Goldberg if he knew what happened on the day that a quote from MRC that Goldberg used in his book) by one of the news anchors about the Russian leaders came from. Goldberg didn’t know that it was the day of the Russian coup. The context of that changed the whole nature of the quote…If you don’t know that context, it sounds like it is left-leaning but if you do it doesn’t at all. And here is what happened when Al franklen confronted Goldberg on this: [http://www.alternet.org/story/16157/](http://www.alternet.org/story/16157/) > [@](#): > > You made an appearance on Donahue’s show back in January and confronted Bernard Goldberg about his book that claimed liberals run the media. And you made the comment on Donahue’s show that so much of the right-wing media is just flat-out lazy in not tracking down sources or context for what is reported. > > FRANKEN: Well, in that one, Goldberg had a chapter called “Left Wing Hate Speech.” He uses as an example something that John Chancellor said in the commentary on Nightly News with Tom Brokaw on August 21, 1991 – that was the day that the coup was put down in the Soviet Union, the one at the Parliament where Yeltsin was on the tank and stuff. And Brokaw gives this impassioned opening to the show, something like, “This is the day where the gray men of the Kremlin were finally put down. And history will speak. And that the people of Russia didn’t let themselves go back into the darkness, the state oppression, blah-blah-blah.” > > Total anti-communist, anti-Soviet introduction. And then, later in the show, Brokaw asks Chancellor, “What does Gorbachev do next?” Because, at this point, what brought about the coup were these horrible shortages that the Soviet Union was having, which were the worst shortages since World War II. And Perestroika, at this point, was six years old. Gorbachev had dismantled the state economy, and there was really no system – there was no communism any more. And so John Chancellor says, basically, Gorbachev is in the position where he can’t blame communism – the problems are the shortages. > > And Goldberg quotes this in his book about “liberal bias” and says it refers to the absurd notion that John Chancellor believes that the shortages in the Soviet Union were not caused by communism. Of course John Chancellor isn’t around anymore to defend himself. > > So I’m on the show with Donahue, and I’m in San Francisco on a satellite, which is always hard to do, and he’s in the studio. And I asked him what happened on that day. I read him the quote. And I said, “What happened that day in the Soviet Union?” thinking that he knew. And then I would just say, “Then how could you leave out that context?” And in fact, he didn’t know. Goldberg just didn’t know. And Goldberg says, “You tell me, Al,” very indignant that I would ask him. And I said, “No, you tell me. It’s your book. You tell me.” And basically he said, “OK, I don’t know.” Milton Friedman would have agreed with what John Chancellor was saying that day. > > But when you confront the right-wing media about their reporting, all they do is they get mad. Instead of saying, “You know what? I really screwed up.” Well, what happened was Goldberg just regurgitated something he got from a right-wing media research center, and just put it in the book and thought that, oh, this proves that John Chancellor thought that communism wasn’t a problem or something. > > It’s the amazing laziness of putting something in your book without thinking, “Huh, let’s see, 1991 – what’s going on around that time? Didn’t communism fall? Didn’t the Soviet Union fall around then? We must check out what this is.” And here I am just reading Goldberg’s book, and I think this is not what it seems. Well, what happened? What happened around then? That was even before I was writing this book about liars and the right-wing. Here, have some more crow: [http://www.crowbusters.com/recipes.htm](http://www.crowbusters.com/recipes.htm) ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/104 "2005-10-29T21:29:27Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > **kaylaspop** , you ascribe too much to my ambitions. Like I’ve said, I’m merely stating my opinions and, on occasion, blowing off steam. As far as the invisible audience that I’m supposed to be so cunningly cultivating, I’m afraid that the subtle and subliminal attempts at manipulating it that you see exist only in your own mind. > > I am flattered however, that you would suspect me of such complex machinations. However, this perceived deviousness is a two-edged sword and it perhaps speaks more of your manipulative inclinations than it does of mine. Whether intentionally manipulative or otherwise, I see a danger in allowing simplistic and poorly thought-out arguments to go unanswered. As for any manipulative inclinations harbored within my own breast, I’ll just say that I have made a solemn vow to use them only for good, or at least for self-defense. - kaylasdad, impressionable 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/105 "2005-10-29T21:35:56Z")
I warned **Harborwolf** about the inevitable objections to this book that he was bound to hear in the hope that he would read it and come to his own conclusions…or at least learn what it is that we who complain of left-wing bias in the media are talking about. If this is the worst you (and Franken) can come up with out of an entire book on the subject, I contend it’s still an excellent read. The book does an superb job overall of describing the nature of left-wing bias in the media and how it came into being. I would imagine that just about any book written could be shown to have an error or two in it. The one you mention hardly negates the undeniable factual information and insights contained throughout the entire book. The only people who would use an error such as this to negate the entire book are people who are looking for an excuse to do so in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/106 "2005-10-29T21:39:20Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Whether intentionally manipulative or otherwise, I see a danger in allowing simplistic and poorly thought-out arguments to go unanswered. So do I, hence my participation (even if on rare occasion, erroneously so 😃 ) on these boards. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/107 "2005-10-29T21:45:44Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > I warned **Harborwolf** about the inevitable objections to this book that he was bound to hear in the hope that he would read it and come to his own conclusions…or at least learn what it is that we who complain of left-wing bias in the media are talking about. If this is the worst you (and Franken) can come up with out of an entire book on the subject, I contend it’s still an excellent read. > > The book does an superb job overall of describing the nature of left-wing bias in the media and how it came into being. I would imagine that just about any book written could be shown to have an error or two in it. The one you mention hardly negates the undeniable factual information and insights contained throughout the entire book. > > The only people who would use an error such as this to negate the entire book are people who are looking for an excuse to do so in the first place. Nope, there are more examples than that: [http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=35124](http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=35124) > [@](#): > > During the course of over 220 pages of complaining, Goldberg never bothers to systematically prove the existence of liberal bias in the news, or even define what he means by the term. About as close as we get is: “I said out loud what millions of TV news viewers all over America know and have been complaining about for years: that too often, Dan and Peter and Tom and a lot of their foot soldiers don’t deliver the news straight, that they have a liberal bias, and that no matter how often the network stars deny it, it is true.” A few of his examples, such as those involving corporate self-censorship in the event that a certain segment might offend the audience or advertisers, or the preference for interviewees with blond hair and blue eyes over people of color, actually serve to make the opposite case. With a keen eye to his likely audience of conservative talk-show hosts and book-buyers, the author simply assumes the existence of a liberal bias in the media to be an undisputable fact. > > This same undocumented assumption characterized the conservative celebration of the book. The editors of the Wall Street Journal thundered: "There are certain facts of life so long obvious they would seem beyond dispute. One of these—that there is a liberal tilt in the media… "U.S. News and World Report columnist John Leo added, in praise of Bias, that “the reluctance of the news business to hold seminars and conduct investigations of news bias is almost legendary.” Glenn Garvin, television critic of the Miami Herald, added, “That newsrooms are mostly staffed by political liberals is pretty much beyond dispute, although a few keep trying to argue the point.” That newspaper’s executive editor, Tom Fielder, was said to be so impressed by Bias that he invited Goldberg to lunch with top members of his staff. He told Garvin, “I hate to say there’s a political correctness that guides us, but I think there is. We tend to give more credibility to groups on the liberal side of the spectrum than on the conservative side.” > > If, in an alternative universe, all of Goldberg’s claims somehow turned out to be justified, the crux of his argument would nevertheless constitute a remarkably narrow indictment. Goldberg did not set out to prove a liberal bias across the entire media, nor even across all television news. He concerned himself only with the evening news broadcasts, and not even with politics, but with social issues. Moreover, he appears to have done little research beyond recounting his own experiences and parroting the complaints of a conservative newsletter published by Brent Bozell’s Media Research Center. It is hard to see what so excited conservative readers about the book. The broadcasts in question represent a declining share of viewers’ attention, and, increasingly, an old and, at least from advertisers’ standpoint, undesirable audience. It is possible that these particular news programs — if not their very format — will not survive the retirement ages of the current generation of anchors. > > Goldberg appears to consider this fact. However, he attributes the relative decline in viewership of the network nightly news to viewer unhappiness with the widespread liberal bias he clams to have uncovered. “It’s as if the Berlin Wall had come down,” he explains. “But instead of voting with their feet, Americans began voting with their remote control devices. They haven’t abandoned the news. Just the news people they no longer trust.” “How else can we account for Bill O’Reilly and The O’Reilly Factor on The Fox News Channel?.. As far as I’m concerned, the three people Bill owes so much of his success to are Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, and Dan Rather.” > > The logic of the above argument is genuinely difficult to fathom. Goldberg is correct to note that all three networks have seen a significant decline in their ratings for their news programs. But so has just about everything on network programming, due, quite obviously, to the enormous rise in viewer choice—the result of the replacement of a three-network television universe with one that features hundreds of choices on cable and satellite TV and the Internet. Viewership for all four networks — ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox — during the ratings period September 24, 2001, to March 3, 2002, for instance, made up only 43 percent of TV watchers, compared with more than twice that percentage for just three networks two decades earlier. Still the network news programs’ numbers remained impressive. The combined audience of the three network news programs is well over thirty million Americans, and better than fifteen times the number tuning into Mr. O’Reilly. It is also more than ten times the combined total prime-time audience for Fox News Channel, CNN, and MSNBC. These ratios render Goldberg’s logic entirely nonsensical. Had he, or anyone related to the book, had enough respect for his readers to bother with even ten minutes of research, this claim would have never made it into print. > > Not all of Goldberg’s arguments are quite as easy to disprove, but most are no less false or misleading. One of the claims that many critics and television interviewers have considered the strongest in the book was the one the author credited with having inspired his initial interest in the topic: > > not because of my conservative views but because what I saw happening violated my liberal sense of fair play. Why, I kept wondering, do we so often identify conservatives in our stories, yet rarely identify liberals? Over the years, I began to realize that this need to identify one side but not the other is a central component of liberal bias. There are right-wing Republicans and right-wing Christians and rightwing radio talk show hosts. The only time we journalists use the term “left-wing” is if we’re talking about a part on an airplane. > > Goldberg illustrates his point with an example taken from the Clinton impeachment proceedings, during which, he claims, Peter Jennings identified senators as they came to sign their names in the oath book. According to Goldberg, Jennings described Mitch McConnell of Kentucky as a “very determined conservative,” Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania as “one of the younger members of the Senate, Republican, very determined conservative,” and Bob Smith of New Hampshire as “another very, very conservative Republican” but did not describe liberals accordingly. Goldberg also complained that CBS identifies the radical feminist Catharine MacKinnon as a “noted law professor” while Phyllis Schlafly is a “conservative spokeswoman.” Rush Limbaugh, says Goldberg, is the “conservative radio talk show host” but Rosie O’Donnell is not described as the liberal TV talk show host. “Robert Bork is the ‘conservative’ judge. But liberal Laurence Tribe, who must have been on CBS Evening News ten million times in the 1980s,” is identified simply as a “Harvard law professor.” > > Well, it would be interesting if true. And many of even the sharpest SCLM critics of Goldberg’s book assumed it to be true, perhaps out of the mistaken belief that he must have done at least this much research. Both Howard Kurtz and Jeff Greenfield failed to challenge it on CNN. Jonathan Chait accepted it in his extremely critical cover story on the book in the New Republic but then went on to explain why, aside from liberal bias, it might be the case. And the then-dean of the Columbia School of Journalism, Tom Goldstein, writing in the Columbia Journalism Review, mocked Goldberg’s ad hominem claims but nevertheless credited Goldberg for “get[ting] down to specifics … [that] have the ring of truth” on this point. > > In fact, all were overly generous. Goldberg presents no testable evidence and his arguments bear little relationship to the truth. At a 2002 book-store appearance broadcast on C-Span, a political science professor asked Goldberg something almost no television interviewer had bothered to inquire: Did he have any systematic data to back up this point? The author scoffed at the very idea of evidence. “I didn’t want this to be written from a social scientist point of view,” Goldberg explained. “I have total confidence that the point here is accurate.” > > Another audience member then challenged him on this point and here, Goldberg got a bit testy: > > Let me say this. And I want to say this as clearly as I can. You are dead wrong. Dead wrong. Not even close about Teddy Kennedy. You have not, almost every time they mention his name, heard “liberal.” I will say this — you have heard the word “liberal” almost never mentioned when they say his name, on the evening newscasts. They just don’t. That part — I mean you gave me an easy one, and I appreciate that. It doesn’t happen. > > Goldberg seems to think that such statements become true by emphatic repetition. In fact, they are testable and it is Bernard Goldberg who is “dead wrong.” On the small, almost insignificant point of whom Peter Jennings identified with what label on a single broadcast, Goldberg’s point is a partial, and deliberately misleading, halftruth. As the liberal Daily Howler Web site pointed out, “the incident occurred on January 7, 1999, and Jennings did not identify ‘every conservative’ as the senators signed the oath book.” He identified only three of them as such, failing to offer the label of conservative to such stalwarts as Senators Gramm, Hatch, Helms, Lott, Mack, Thurmond, Lugar, Stevens, Thompson, and Warner. Most of the labels had nothing to do with politics and were peppered with personal asides about a given senator’s age, interests, or personality. On the larger point regarding a liberal bias in the labeling of conservatives, but not liberals, Goldberg could hardly be more wrong, even using the very examples he proposes. For instance, Ted Kennedy does not appear on the news with much frequency, but during the first six months of 2001, when he did, it was almost always accompanied by the word “liberal.” As for the “million” respectful references to Laurence Tribe that appeared without the appendage “liberal,” the indefatigable Howler checked those as well. According to Lexis, Howler found, Tribe has appeared on the CBS Evening News just nine times since 1993, almost always identified with a liberal label. On one occasion, May 14, 1994, CBS News even used Tribe and Robert Bork together, described as “legal scholars from both ends of the political spectrum.” Crow is very tasty nowadays it seems. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/108 "2005-10-29T22:00:50Z")
It looks like Goldberg is just another lazy, dishonest rightwing shill. Any time I start wondering about the liberal left wing bias, all I have to do is listen to Limbaugh, Hannity, or the others of their kind, watch Fox News, or read the Wall Street Journal, NY Times, etc. They all, in their own way, say “Praise the Leader. Hail Bush.” They talk about his “vision” and “steadfastness” and “religousness” blah blah. They gloss over or play apologist for his many lies and outrageous displays of incompetence. Sometimes they flat out lie. ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/109 "2005-10-29T22:25:00Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > [ **Harborwolf** , I’m disappointed. You expressed sincere mystification as to the perception and/or nature of liberal media bias and a desire to “get to the bottom of it.” I provided not only examples of my own as to how the media handles the news in such a way that the result is to cast a favorable light on the left and a negative light on the right. And given that much of what I described you had heard from me before, I recommended an excellent book written by a leftist but thoroughly objective reporter and long time employee of CBS. > > Your response was indeed to “blow me off”, even though you state this wasn’t your intent. If you truly wanted to know why the media is perceived (or more accurately, recognized) as being biased, you would be interested in giving Goldberg’s book a read, even if for no other reason than to add to your alleged desire to understand where the claim of liberal media bias comes from. Don’t tell me. After reading Goldbergs book, I have to watch the Doors right? 😉 I was going to post more than that, but I have to eat and run someplace. I’ll get back to this later. If I get time, I’ll check Sam Stones cites tonight. If I don’t, I’ll check them tommorrow. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2005, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/110 "2005-10-29T22:46:12Z")
Seth Ackerman, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, August 2001 - “Years ago, Republican party chair Rich Bond explained that conservatives’ frequent denunciations of ‘liberal bias’ in the media were part of ‘a strategy’ (Washington Post, 8/20/92). Comparing journalists to referees in a sports match, Bond explained: ‘If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is’work the refs.” Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time.’" Bill Kristol -‘The press isn’t quite as biased and liberal. They’re actually conservative sometimes,’ Kristol said recently on CNN. If Chris missed that one, he might have come across a similar admission by Kristol offered up in the spring of 1995. ‘I admit it,’ Kristol told The New Yorker. ‘The whole idea of the ‘liberal media’ was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures.’ Norman Solomon, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, undated - ‘The truth is, I’ve gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas than I ever imagined I would receive,’ Buchanan acknowledged in March 1996. He added: ‘I’ve gotten balanced coverage and broad coverage – all we could have asked.’ Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, June 2002 - A study of ABC World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News in the year 2001 shows that 92 percent of all U.S. sources interviewed were white, 85 percent were male and, where party affiliation was identifiable, 75 percent were Republican. Geoffrey Nunberg, The American Prospect, May 6, 2002 - [T]here was a discrepancy in the frequency of labeling, but not in the way [Bernard] Goldberg [author of Bias] – or for that matter, I – assumed. On the contrary, the average liberal legislator has a better than 30 percent greater likelihood of being given a political label than the average conservative does. The press describes [Barney] Frank as a liberal two-and-a-half times as frequently as it describes [Dick] Armey as a conservative. It labels [Barbara] Boxer almost twice as often as it labels [Trent] Lott, and labels [Paul] Wellstone more often than [Jesse] Helms. E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, December 6, 2002 - It took conservatives a lot of hard and steady work to push the media rightward. It dishonors that work to continue to presume that – except for a few liberal columnists – there is any such thing as the big liberal media. The media world now includes (1) talk radio, (2) cable television and (3) the traditional news sources (newspapers, newsmagazines and the old broadcast networks). Two of these three major institutions tilt well to the right, and the third is under constant pressure to avoid even the pale hint of liberalism. These institutions, in turn, influence the burgeoning world of online news and commentary. San Francisco Examiner, undated - The biggest lie fed the American people by conservative pundits is that the United States is dominated by the ‘liberal media.’ As if Rupert Murdoch, Michael Eisner, General Electric, Time-Warner AOL and Viacom are owned and operated by liberals. Not only are these folks ultra-conservatives, but the people they hire to voice their opinions are so far to the right, they give independent journalism a dirty name. No, my friends, the corporate media is in the hands of right-wing kooks parading as moderates and pushing the political envelope further and further to the right. Jack F.K. Bungart, Vallejo Times-Herald, January 5, 2002 - If there is in fact a liberal media, it sure has been taking a lot of time off. Where was it during the Clinton years? Long before Monica, the press went after the Democratic, supposedly liberal president with a vengeance that took even longtime Washington observers – many of them Republican – by surprise. Where was it during Clinton’s alleged runway haircut fiasco early in his first term? Or the supposed destruction of the White House by departing Clinton staffers? Both stories, widely reported as fact, have since been convincingly rebuked. Where was it during Campaign 2000 [see below], after which two separate – and non-partisan – study groups determined that George W. Bush, not Al Gore, received the more glowing, less critical headlines and coverage? Where was it when Gore was mocked mercilessly for supposedly claiming to have invented the Internet? Or be the subject of ‘Love Story’? Neither actually happened, but hoo boy, the Beast knows good copy when it sees it. Where was it during the Condit feeding frenzy, when one look at a 24-hour cable channel made it look like – lack of any real evidence be damned – the Democratic congressman would be indicted any second on murder charges? Where was it during the lazy, dismissive coverage of the follow-up to the Florida recount, which attempted to tidily wrap up what was as murky a mess as ever? How odd it is that the whine against the so-called liberal media seems to always come from the same ever-expanding conservative media that buries presidents before inauguration day, acts as if the art of politicians blocking legislation only happens on one side of the aisle and loosely throws around murder accusations as if they’re passes during touch football games. The liberal media is a myth, a lie. There is no such thing. If the president fucks up and his people fuck up, that is news. To report it, is news, not rampant liberality. How long did the media blithely go along with anything Bush and his people said? Now that they are FINALLY getting of their asses and asking real questions instead of printing spoon fed Pubbie propaganda, they are liberal? Bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2005, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/111 "2005-10-30T00:11:39Z")
This is getting silly! **Gigo** , your post in the main appears to argue mainly that Goldberg never “systematically proved” his allegation of a biased media was so, therefore his book can’t be taken seriously. Again, we’re getting into the realm of opinion and conclusions based on observation and analyzation – which I know you guys hate because you can’t go scurrying around looking for some statistic or liberal claim that can be misapplied in an effort to prove them wrong – but Goldberg’s book is his explanation of how he came to perceive liberal media bias and the events that either shaped this perception or illustrate it. In the world of politics and morals, there is no absolute right or wrong that exists as an irrefutable fact. Everything is an opinion or belief. Many things that were considered wrong 100 years are just peachy now, and vice versa. There are many things that were once considered good that are now considered bad. (And, who knows…given enough time they may reverse themselves yet again.) Things like the weather are absolute. Rain exists fordogs, cats, lions, and humans. It can’t be denied, and all living creatures are aware of its existence. Good and bad (and liberal or conservative, for that matter) are human constructs. They exist only in our minds and in the way we decide to perceive them. They don’t exist as absolutes that can be “systematically proven.” Goldberg’s book is a recitation of his observations and the beliefs that grew from them. Nothing more, nothing less. And the opinions he’s formed as a result of lifetime observation are not negated by a faulty illustration here or a misapplication of some fact or the other there. And, although I know you and many others of a similar mind around would love to disagree when it suits your purposes, you can’t legitimately take a look at a hundred allegations, search out one that happens to be in error, and declare therefore that all one hundred are bogus. The same applies with S **teveG1’s** recitation of this quote or that fact from a largely liberal number of cites. Occasional harsh treatment of a liberal politician or occasional support of a conservative goal does not mean more or less permanent and ongoing bias against the right does not exist. From now on I’m going to adopt the same position in this thread that I do in offline life where I rarely concern myself with whether or not someone believes me when I say something. All I can do is tell the truth; whether you choose to believe it is your problem. Left-wing media bias exists. It has a long tradition and goes back at least eighty years and probably longer. I see it. Millions of other Americans see it. The only reason you and others like you don’t see it is because you’re aligned with it. I will never convince you otherwise, so there is no point in continuing to tilt at windmills. Believe what you wish, but know that you’ll continue to be frustrated and angered by the ever-increasing popularity and support of outlets and spokespeople such as Fox and Limbaugh withour ever realizing that the media bias you so fervently deny is directly responsible for their very existence and growth. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2005, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/112 "2005-10-30T00:31:27Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > The same applies with S **teveG1’s** recitation of this quote or that fact from a largely liberal number of cites. So you claim there’s a liberal bias, and when you are given evidence there isn’t, you accuse the source of that evidence as being liberally biased. Do you see that you have a non-falsifiable belief? I say there is bias in the media against purple hedgehogs. Any evidence that is provided to me that there isn’t such a bias, well, those must come from sources that are anti-purple-hedgehog. Just out of curiosity, suppose the media doesn’t have a liberal bias, or even has liberal bias but loses it. Do you see that there’s no possible way you will ever be convinced of it not being biased, because any evidence to the contrary will be dismissed as being part of the bias you believe in on faith? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2005, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/113 "2005-10-30T00:41:52Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > Do you see that you have a non-falsifiable belief? Not only does he see it, he luxuriates in it. I have an opinion. I’ll spit it at you and lie back and enjoy the outcome. Because it is only my opinion. It’s not based in fact or subject to falsification. “Ignorance. You’re soaking in it.” “Ancient conservative secret, huh?” ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2005, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/114 "2005-10-30T01:09:43Z")
> [@Revtim](#): > > So you claim there’s a liberal bias, and when you are given evidence there isn’t, you accuse the source of that evidence as being liberally biased. Not quite. I see the odd nugget of a contrarian tidbit accompanied the declaration that the tidbit is proof against the whole. Few things in life are absolute. Media bias is not evident in every, single, word or comment to come out of the media. The fact that someone can come up with an illustration of the odd moment when it’s not in evidence is not evidence in and of itself that media bias does not exist. > [@Revtim](#): > > Do you see that you have a non-falsifiable belief? Yes. That’s why I believe it. 😃 > [@Revtim](#): > > Just out of curiosity, suppose the media doesn’t have a liberal bias, or even has liberal bias but loses it. Do you see that there’s no possible way you will ever be convinced of it not being biased, because any evidence to the contrary will be dismissed as being part of the bias you believe in on faith? No, I do not. For example, I have seen a lessening of bias at CNN of late – no doubt a result of the fact that Fox and O’Reilly are beating the crap out of it in the ratings, along with the concomitant and recent realization that much of the country does indeed see bias in the way they’ve reported in the past – and I am able both to see that fact and to be more willing to watch CNN and read its website as a result. In fact, CNN is almost tied with Fox now as to where I turn in order to get most of my day’s news, both online and over the air. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2005, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/115 "2005-10-30T01:19:15Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > This is getting silly! Hey, coming for more helpings of crow is. 🙂 > [@](#): > > **Gigo** , your post in the main appears to argue mainly that Goldberg never “systematically proved” his allegation of a biased media was so, therefore his book can’t be taken seriously. Again, we’re getting into the realm of opinion and conclusions based on observation and analyzation – which I know you guys hate because you can’t go scurrying around looking for some statistic or liberal claim that can be misapplied in an effort to prove them wrong – We don’t hate looking around for evidence: > [@American Progress](#): > > On the larger point regarding a liberal bias in the labeling of conservatives, but not liberals, Goldberg could hardly be more wrong, even using the very examples he proposes. For instance, Ted Kennedy does not appear on the news with much frequency, but during the first six months of 2001, when he did, it was almost always accompanied by the word “liberal.” As for the “million” respectful references to Laurence Tribe that appeared without the appendage “liberal,” the indefatigable Howler checked those as well. According to Lexis, Howler found, Tribe has appeared on the CBS Evening News just nine times since 1993, almost always identified with a liberal label. Opinions are good, but without evidence to back them, they are useless opinions. > [@](#): > > From now on I’m going to adopt the same position in this thread that I do in offline life where I rarely concern myself with whether or not someone believes me when I say something. All I can do is tell the truth; whether you choose to believe it is your problem. It is also yours, and in the SDMB we look at the evidence to make a better choice. > [@](#): > > Left-wing media bias exists. It has a long tradition and goes back at least eighty years and probably longer. I see it. Millions of other Americans see it. The only reason you and others like you don’t see it is because you’re aligned with it. Have you heard the adage that the truth hurts? After all we did go trough, one can take a guess on why there are Fox viewers. Traditionally, truth and justice are represented as a naked woman but is mostly the status quo who makes a concerted effort to hide it. [Some in the right do take that literally.](http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/01/29/statues.htm) > [@](#): > > I will never convince you otherwise, so there is no point in continuing to tilt at windmills. Believe what you wish, but know that you’ll continue to be frustrated and angered by the ever-increasing popularity and support of outlets and spokespeople such as Fox and Limbaugh withour ever realizing that the media bias you so fervently deny is directly responsible for their very existence and growth. Wrong, the one tilting the windmills is people like in the left that in conclusion have no automatic way to get the mainstream to jump to their points, the power is currently with the owners of all, and when silly excuses are found to even have any alternative view on Air forces radio like what is happening to [Ed Schultz](http://www.dailykos.com/tag/Armed%20Forces%20Radio), you should never forget that we care more on being right than in being popular. The reality still remains: if the mainstream was liberal, there would not be any news that the left consider important left out of the reports and opinions appearing in outfits like Air America or Common dreams, it is a fact that the majority of the news they touch are barely touched by the mainstream. The fact that the mainstream sometimes, for fairness sake, deals with those topics is evil to people like you, a silly standard. Hence we have FOX, but people like me don’t mind that much, unlike some we do take freedom of speech seriously, what we do mind is that outfits like Fox call themselves “fair and balanced”. There can be no balance when lies are advanced, just because they sound so nice coming from Rush or Coulter, and are “increasing in popularity” (and there is data contradicting that) does not mean it becomes the truth: > **["Meet my CIA Wife," said Joe Wilson.](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=342000)** > > … according to three different talking heads today. Now granted, it was on Fox News so you could attack the messenger … or you could question why it wasn’t heard on other outlets. The question is … did he actually introduce her as such before she... Finally more evidence of what the bias we really have in media is here: [http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004008.php](http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/004008.php) > [@](#): > > Conservatives who keep recycling the magical “liberal bias” meme despite the (above) facts, may best be remembered as being the Bernard Goldbergs of the world. Why? I’ll let the incomparable Bob Somerby explain: > > GOLDBERG (page 13): “Then what about the mainstream media’s treatment of Clinton? You can’t possibly think they went easy on him, can you?” is what liberals always ask. > It’s a fair question. And the answer is, no, they didn’t go easy on Clinton. The truth is, reporters will go after any politician—liberal or conservative—if the story is big enough and the politician is powerful enough. > > Strange, isn’t it? The press corps is swimming in liberal bias—but they “didn’t go easy on Clinton,” this generation’s most important liberal pol! (Bernie doesn’t mention the trashing of Gore.) But then, Bernie can talk his way out of anything. Here’s the way he gets around the media’s coverage of Bush: > > GOLDBERG (pages 10-11): Perhaps the charge liberals have been making most often to back their claim of conservative bias is that the media have given George W. Bush a free ride on some very important issues involving foreign policy and national security. For a while you could hardly open up a liberal magazine or go to a liberal Web site without finding some bitter screed about how the press was sucking up to the president on everything from the war in Iraq to supposed civil liberties abuses at home. But the truth is, all the media were doing was what the media always do in times of war: They were rallying round the flag. > Can’t you see? \*\*_There’s an answer for everything_! \*\* In BernieVille, the media can “go after Clinton” and give Bush “a free ride,” but they’re still thick with that rank liberal bias! [eRiposte emphasis] ---
**Author:** ![Bob\_Loblaw\_1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4af34b/32.png) [@Bob\_Loblaw\_1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bob_Loblaw_1)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2005, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/116 "2005-10-30T01:35:19Z")
> [@Harborwolf](#): > > I’ll try to make this as clear as possible. I’m remembering from this morning and as dinner is on the stove I don’t have time to go to the NPR site for a link. Maybe later tonight. > > Kilgore laid out an attack ad claiming that Tim Kaine wouldn’t even recommend the death penalty for Hitler. This is a tremendous oversimplification of an answer Kaine gave at an event. Kaine, a death penalty opponent and fairly religious person, was asked if he would allow the death penalty for Hitler, Stalin, and one other whose name escapes me. What Kaine said was something to the effect that only God gives life and only God should be allowed to take life. > > When called on his purposeful oversimplification of the remark for the purpose of smearing his opponent, Kilgore blaimed it on the “liberal” media and their being soulmates of his liberal opponent. It’s an excuse, and a lousy one to boot. > > Maybe idiot is the wrong term. Raging scumbag would probably suit better. It’s just my opinion on his character. I just don’t understand how anyone could support a candidate who uses such blatant mischaracterizations and then tries to dodge it with a broad blanket attack on the media. I just can’t stand that whole “media has x partisan bias” line of crap. YMMV. But why isn’t that okay as an argument to make against the guy? I’m a death penalty opponent in all cases because there simply are not enough Hitler and Stalins to make exceptions, although I’d cheerfully off either of them if given the chance. American politics today is replete with examples of making mountains out of molehills and illogically smearing one’s opponent. In this case, the guy actually said the statement in response to a question. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2005, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/117 "2005-10-30T03:12:23Z")
> [@](#): > > The reality still remains: if the mainstream was liberal, there would not be any news that the left consider important left out of the reports and opinions appearing in outfits like Air America or Common dreams, it is a fact that the majority of the news they touch are barely touched by the mainstream. Meant to say: The reality still remains: If the mainstream was liberal, there would not be any news that the left considers important out of the headlines. The majority of reports and opinions appearing in outfits like Air America or [Commondreams.com](http://Commondreams.com) would be repeated in the mainstream if they were liberal. It is a fact that the majority of the news the truly liberal sites do report remains barely touched by the mainstream. Here I could go biblical and point about that old tale about the house divided against itself: if you still insist places like CNN or CBS or ABC are liberal I would expect them to be in the good graces of the left. This has not happened, and ever since 1936 it does mean little that a good number of reporters are liberal, the bottom-line rules. [http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/08/10\_cnn.html](http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/08/10_cnn.html) ---
**Author:** ![Zoe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/a4c791/32.png) [@Zoe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoe)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2005, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/118 "2005-10-30T04:41:04Z")
Vanderbilt University has a media news collection that includes all of the network nightly news broadcasts going back to at least the early 1970’s and possibly the 1960’s. They are made available for research. Those who study communication, political science and other fields find an undeniable source of statistical information there. I feel reasonably certain there have been many studies. To me, _that_ is what would tell the truth rather than a book with examples taken out of context. Some of the examples may illustrate a momentary bias, but it wouldn’t give an overall picture. The errors that have been pointed out in Goldberg’s book do indicate that he is careless with the facts and not very reliable. I would look to another source. If the media has had such a liberal bias for the last five years, why have liberals been so frustrated with the coverage? Why have there been so many complaints about pop stories instead of **in depth investigative coverage** of the Neo-cons, torture memos, Guantanamo, pre-war intelligence, and pre-2000 planning for the war in Iraq? It’s only natural that anything that doesn’t have a conservative viewpoint looks biased to anyone from the right. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2005, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/119 "2005-10-30T05:16:25Z")
The reason those of you on the far left can’t see the Liberal bias is because it is to the **right** of you. To you, the media looks balanced slightly to the right, perhaps. It’s all a matter of perspective. As the study I cited said, the media has a narrative. It exists in a fairly narrow ideological range somewhat left of center. Ideas from either side of the comfortable niche they’ve hollowed out of the _zeitgeist_ are either ignored, belittled. or tivialized. This rigidity of thought has now spawned all kinds of independent media. And not just on the right. _Daily Kos_ is a political force, because he represents an awful lot of readers. But the incredibly rapid rise and dominance of _Fox News_ shows that there was a pretty big gap between the media and the people, and Rupert Murdoch filled it. As did Rush Limbaugh. If the mainstream media truly had no bias, Fox would have had a harder time of it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2005, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864/120 "2005-10-30T06:00:22Z")
As I said before one has to follow the news not the olds (the status quo=the ones in power) I still think that by nature many times the news will sound liberal, as the Plame leak shows. If you have not noticed yet, I am approaching the bias issue from the accuracy angle: here is a case were Rush is flatly lying: > **["Meet my CIA Wife," said Joe Wilson.](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=342000)** > > … according to three different talking heads today. Now granted, it was on Fox News so you could attack the messenger … or you could question why it wasn’t heard on other outlets. The question is … did he actually introduce her as such before she... Once again: Are you guys on the right saying that \*\*showing no bias \*\* means to report dubious, lying or misleading reports that benefits the republican cause? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-right-and-its-persecution-complex/327864.md?page=7)