# What is the origin of the canard that CNN is "liberal"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 1, 2005, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-origin-of-the-canard-that-cnn-is-liberal/301979 "2005-05-01T21:28:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-origin-of-the-canard-that-cnn-is-liberal/301979/61 "2005-05-03T19:59:16Z")
Read[Bias](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895261901/qid=1115150607/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-9015075-9041742?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by Bernard Goldberg. It’s an eyeopener. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-origin-of-the-canard-that-cnn-is-liberal/301979/62 "2005-05-03T20:24:13Z")
> [@Clothahump](#): > > Read[Bias](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895261901/qid=1115150607/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-9015075-9041742?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by Bernard Goldberg. > > It’s an eyeopener. That’s an interesting point. Goldberg, an insider, claims liberal bias at CBS. Is there a similar claim from an insider concerning conservative bias anywhere? ---
**Author:** ![DMC](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dmc/32/18049_2.png) [@DMC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DMC)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-origin-of-the-canard-that-cnn-is-liberal/301979/63 "2005-05-03T21:07:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > During the campaign, one of the presidential candidates was ahead, 52% to 44%, with a margin of error of plus or minus 4 points. CNN’s headline said that the candidate with 52% “leads” the other candidate. > > When the leader was Kerry, anyway. > > The headline for that poll info was “Kerry Leads Bush.” > > But when the numbers were EXACTLY reversed, with George W. Bush in the lead with 52%, to Kerry’s 44%, same margin of error, the headline was “Bush Apparently Leads Kerry.” When the numbers were even [closer](http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/19/bush.kerry.poll/index.html), but in Bush’s favor, they didn’t use the word apparently. So, does that make them conservative again? It’s hard to keep up when we’re going to have to fight every single tiny piece of “evidence of bias” that you dug up on some blog. Come on, is that the best you can do? “Apparently.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2005, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-origin-of-the-canard-that-cnn-is-liberal/301979/64 "2005-05-03T22:22:10Z")
> [@DMC](#): > > When the numbers were even [closer](http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/19/bush.kerry.poll/index.html), but in Bush’s favor, they didn’t use the word apparently. So, does that make them conservative again? It’s hard to keep up when we’re going to have to fight every single tiny piece of “evidence of bias” that you dug up on some blog. > > Come on, is that the best you can do? “Apparently.” Well, I’d point out that while they eschewed the use of “apparently,” their story was not that favorable to Bush: the very first sentence, in bold: > [@](#): > > President Bush increased his lead over Sen. John Kerry in a CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll released Monday, but fewer than half of the respondents said they approved of the way Bush is handling of the war in Iraq. In any event, I acknowledged that anecdotes are insufficient in post# 58, above. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-origin-of-the-canard-that-cnn-is-liberal/301979/65 "2005-05-04T00:10:48Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If the Today show ridiculed and heaped scorn on its Republican/conservative guests, while praising the ideas offered by their Democratic/liberal guests, then the bias is in favor of the Democratic/liberal side. If the Today show offered a neutral forum for the ideas of each side, then the bias probably skews against the Democratic/liberal side, just based on the numbers. Well, if you’d like to demonstrate that the **Today** show displayed disproportionate scorn/praise on its guests based on political affiliation, that shouldn’t be hard to prove – it’s not as if videotapes or transcripts of the shows in question don’t exist. > [@Clothahump](#): > > Read[Bias](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895261901/qid=1115150607/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/102-9015075-9041742?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by Bernard Goldberg. > > It’s an eyeopener. It’s also a load of hooey, at least given what I’ve skimmed through at the bookstore. But it propagates the “liberal media” myth (and Goldberg makes good money playing it that way), so conservatives love to drag it up at every opportunity as if it’s some sort of infallable conclusion. :rolleyes: > [@Bricker](#): > > Is there a similar claim from an insider concerning conservative bias anywhere? [This guy](http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2001/05/17/brock/index.html) (and his [book](http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400047285/qid=1115165761/sr=8-3/ref=pd_csp_3/102-0821276-6992114?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)) comes to mind. ---
**Author:** ![Plan\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Plan\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Plan_B)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-origin-of-the-canard-that-cnn-is-liberal/301979/66 "2005-05-04T02:52:44Z")
Getting back to the OP…I don’t think the problem with CNN is with the balance of commentators. I’ve read a lot of the conservative blogs and magazines and I can’t remember anyone complaining about that. The problem has to do with the part of the programming that is supposed to be objective. I gave a couple of examples from _South Park Conservatives_ on the last thread but they were met with the usual dismissals, e.g. He’s a liar; Specific examples are just anecdotes; He’s a conservative, etc. But neither of my examples were refuted in any meaningful way. So I resent the wording of the title of the thread and the characterizations of conservatives in the OP. If you’re not going to read the answers why ask the questions? And why am I bothering to waste my time giving answers? I’ll have to think about that one again. And getting back to the previous post, David Brock is no Bernard Goldberg. His hit piece on Anita Hill was a vicious piece of crap and he was never well respected by conservatives. And everything he’s written since then has been about as bad. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-origin-of-the-canard-that-cnn-is-liberal/301979/67 "2005-05-04T06:21:51Z")
> [@Plan B](#): > > David Brock is no Bernard Goldberg. His hit piece on Anita Hill was a vicious piece of crap and he was never well respected by conservatives. Sherman, set the [WABAC machine:](http://www.alternet.org/story/11127/) > [@](#): > > …Brock’s magazine piece – the book won’t be available for several weeks – serves a purpose by reminding us how the rightwing community reacted to his underhanded anti-Hill crusade. His original hit on her, published in _The American Spectator,_ derided Hill as “a little bit nutty and a little bit slutty.” > > The use of this a line by Brock – who had no reputation as an investigative journalist at the time – should have been a tip-off. Wasn’t such perjorative and loathsome language an indication that he could not be trusted? That he was more interested in name-calling than truth-seeking? > > Not for the right. He was hailed. **Rush Limbaugh read his article on the air practically non-stop.** (Circulation of _The American Spectator_ tripled. But what goes around, comes around – these days the magazine is in serious decline.) And when Brock’s follow-up book on Anita Hill was published, **the high-and-mighty of conservative circles – Judges Robert Bork, David Sentelle and Larry Silberman, Irving and Bill Kristol, Senator John Danforth, Arnaud de Borchgrave, Boyden Gray, Charles Krauthammer, Britt Hume and Laura Ingraham – flocked to a party for the boy-wonder.** Oh, yeah, “never well-respected by conservatives,” all right. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Harborwolf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Harborwolf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Harborwolf)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2005, 11:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-origin-of-the-canard-that-cnn-is-liberal/301979/68 "2005-05-04T11:12:15Z")
Actually **Plan B** , **Redfury** offered a refutation [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6099968&postcount=187) of the book in the thread you mentioned. There was even a [cite](http://mediamatters.org/items/200504210003) in the refutation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-origin-of-the-canard-that-cnn-is-liberal/301979.md?page=3)