Absolutely not! We are saying that showing no bias means reporting the news in such a way that it is impossible to ascertain which side of the issue the reporter and/or reporting agency favors.
This means showing the same positive or negative demeanor to John Edwards that one shows to Dick Cheney; the same delight (or absense thereof) with Lynn Cheney that is shown to Hillary Clinton; the same credence given to the White House side of an issue that is shown to the opposition rather than showing film clips of an angry, impassioned, attractive liberal ranting and raving before a cheering crowd (with ancillary shots of said crowd included as well) and then offering the bland counterpoint by the anchor that the White House denies the allegations being made during the rally. It means keeping the glow of approval off your face when speaking of a this or that liberal proposal or personality, and likewise keeping the scowling, skeptical, borderline accusatory expression off your face and out of your tone of voice.
It means not deciding for itself that this or that war is bad and slanting its coverage accordingly. It means showing good things that are happening as a result of the war in the same way they show the bad. Time and again we hear from soldiers and civilian personnel returning from Iraq talking about all the good things that are happening over there and that none of it reaching the American public.
It means going after presidents and/or their aides with the same zeal (or lack thereof) no matter their their party affiliation. It means not sitting in the press briefing room and everyone in the room trying en masse to get the president to admit to some mistake, any mistake, just so they can blow it out of proportion and attempt to use it to get the opposition candidate, whom they support, elected.
It means not attending dinner parties and social gatherings of the Democrat elite and hob-nobbing with them on a personal basis while at the same time shunning Republican society gatherings, unless it is to portray them as gatherings of fat cats getting together to see how they can all line their pockets even further.
I could go on for pages, but I think the point has been made.
:smack: Make that “…and likewise keeping the scowling, skeptical, borderline accusatory expression off your face and out of your tone of voice* when speaking of this or that conservative proposal or personality*.”
If you can not deny with evidence what the press did to Clinton, then you are the one who is blind.
Regarding the war, the latest evidence showed that the support for the war in Iraq was one of the biggest mistakes the press ever did, you are really showing a dangerous naiveté here, the New York times was respected but considered part of the liberal establishment, yet they, like many other supposedly liberal papers, **actually decided for itself that this war was ok **(thanks to Judith Miller). Neddless to say, Fox was all in favor for it.
Based on the latest evidence, the New York Times came with a Mea culpa. Where is the Fox one?
I’m beginning to see part of the reason for our disconnect. I’m long term and you are here and now…today, almost.
Clinton on his worst day never experinced one-tenth of the media vilification and determination for undoing that was foist upon Nixon throughout his entire career. Nor did he have the press blatantly and openly gunning for him as did Bush at the press conference I mentioned.
The press only supported the war temporarily until they could find good enough grounds to begin to assail it, given the support the president had at the time the war started.
You can cherry-pick things here and there that either favor a conservative or harm a liberal because even though biased, the media still has to report the news. But the fact that jounalists are overwhelmingly liberal themselves is something they just can’t keep out of their reportage, and your recitation of this or that nugget to the contrary does nothing to disprove the overall consistency of the media’s liberal bias throughout the years.
How amusing! You provide me with an example of my own point in the post above even while I’m writing it. (Such as regards my comment about the media still having to report the news, even if it’s bad for a president they
otherwise favor.)
I’m amused also by your allegation that Goldberg is my hero. I read his book when it came out and saw him on television at some campus appearance moderated, I believe, by Chris Matthews…and other than that have scarcely given him a thought.
But of course, you are anxious to discredit my assertations and since I brought Goldberg into the thread…and you feel Goldberg is without credence…you seek to portray him as my hero in order to attempt to diminish my own position through (as you see it) guilt by association.
Did I mention before that you are an ignorant of historical dimensions?
Sorry, but this still does not sound right, Tricky Dick was elected twice, It would have been impossible if all the mainstream was liberal and against him:
Screw the judges!
I’m in it for the 15 rounds, I already got a belt!
Win or lose, a good fight is a good fight!
This is so much more satisfying than yelling at the TV,
my TV just will not fight back!
(I recall the Terminator lost in that movie,
H’mm, where did I put my vat of molten metal?)
Sam Stone, that blog isn’t any more credible just because it’s on the ABC news website. I read the thing, and it reads like any of Starving Artists posts: chock full of opinion and lacking in any back up. Do you have a link to the study? I’d like to read it for myself.
Bob Loblaw, it’s a big step from “Only God can give or take life. It isn’t my place to decide.” to “He wouldn’t even kill Hitler.” Do you agree or disagree?
Starving Artist, Ya durn tootin I want empirical proof of this. This is a big ass claim you are trying to make and to pin it on opinion ain’t gonna work. You can whinge about being unable to change peoples minds as much as you want but you aren’t making much of an effort to do so.
I’ll once again suggest that people visit Media Matters, the finest compilation of evidence of the extreme rightward slant of today’s media out there.
I have no doubt of the howls that will arise from the right, observing that this is a selected review of the media that could be easily equalled by a site with a right-wing slant. To that I note that it has been quite some time since Media Matters started working on documenting rightie bullshit. Where is the counterpart website?
Media Matters is great, because they source and document everything. They rely on empirical evidence whenever possible, such as counting the number of guests of each type on a show. I have yet to hear a cogent argument as to how their points are invalid.
The truth about this stuff is that many of today’s righties do want to believe that they are oppressed and outnumbered. Most bring a me-against-the-world mentality into the picture to begin with. I don’t believe it is at odds with the larger goals of each party. It’s hard to have compassion for others when you feel life has treated you unfairly, and when the odds are not in your favor.
Give me a rock-ribbed Republican like my father any day of the week and twice on Sundays. Quiet, determined, hard working, and not at all likely to whine like a pussy about how unfair life is.
I see this thread was a waste of my time. Hannity, Combs, Limbaugh, Coulter, Fox, Rupert Murdoch, the Times. the Post, et al are completely fair and impartial. Jennings “asked to leave CBS” for being “mean to Bush”. Every “stay the course” and “he flip flopped” proclaimed from the bastions of journalistic integrity, while proven lies and mis-steps by the administration (Niger yellow cake, WMD, Osama Iraq link, CIA leak, Schiavo, Katrina/Brown/FEMA) are printed as absolute fact - until they are shown to be so false and so outrageous that they can no longer be swept under the rug. Meanwhile what does the left have? Air America, period. Sometimes Newsweek. Sometimes.
The reason the media is getting tougher on Bush is because, when you strip away all the bullshit, he deserves it. He asked for it. SOME people were not as stupid or “loyal” as he thought. They were pretty stupid, but not THAT stupid.
There is a sense of persecution amongst many of the religious right in this nation. My husband had an officer retire Friday and while saying goodbye to roll call the officer said, “I know I am not allowed to talk about it, but Jesus is important in my life and I love him. I hope to see you all again in heaven”. There was nothing wrong with saying that. But, previously, this officer was told to cease trying to convert inmates and staff by handing out literature and telling people they were sinning. He was never told that he could not say he loved Jesus and hoped to see his friends in heaven. He did not seem to understand that “wards of the state” are their by compulsion and henceforth are not be subjected to religious conversion techniques by their warders. But, he had to take a sanctimonious stance at the end of his career, thumbing his nose (or so he thought) at the evil anti-religious state, and gaining extra “god points” for use as comps in heaven. (I hear standing up to the evil atheistic state gets you a room upgrade from a two double bed to a king size with a fridge).
However, this did not stop him from assuming that asking him not to try and convert inmates was the same as saying he could no longer talk about his religion, share his experiences or mention Jesus. This sort of persecution complex is pervasive. I imagine that since Jesus is the central, defining point to religious fundamentalists, they conclude that any suppression, at all, of their conversion techniques, is persecuting them.
The alternative explanation, one that you blithely ignore, would be that some of the people have such a bias, and gravitate towards sources that reflect that bias.
It has been suggested the Bushiviks hold sway over roughly 20% of the population, the “True Believers”, if you will. Whatever number you might wish to apply, the fact remains that a source of news that reflects their views is bound to be more appealing, that entire segment of the population would hew to Fox, while the rest is divided over the rest of the sources. There being only one Fox News, they would necessarily benefit immediately and hugely by a 20% share of the population.
Hell, I watch Fox myself! I’m to lazy to trouble myself with wondering what sort of spin the Usual Suspects will apply to any given event. Like the aforementioned True Believers, I watch Fox because of their bias, precisely because it runs in direct contradiction to mine own. Hence, my participation adds to their demographics despite the fact that I regard them with, shall we say, skepticism.
Yet, these same people delight in trying to persecute others - witness the recent Miers debacle - the religious right stopped her, because they want “their” judge - to overthrow Row vs Wade, end stem cell research, drag prayer back into schools, force ID into science classes, allow pharmacists to refuse various medications to customers, family values, etc. Control and persecution is OK, so long as they are the ones doing it.
