WTF is "liberal media"

[Der_Trihs]

A “liberal media” is one that reports the facts, since American conservatism is consistently factually wrong. That’s why the term was invented, and why it persists. And why the counter-phrase “reality has a liberal bias” also exists.

[eschereal]

The media in general are “liberal” in the sense that most of its reporters are well-educated, which often tends to impart unto them a true-middle to left bias. However, the content is mediated by the customers, which is to say the advertisers, who usually have a complementary bias relative to the “liberal” reporters. The bulk of major media are businesses, which means the natural bias of major media is not “liberal”. Reporters can make words and images happen, but they typically do not get to decide which of those words and images are put forth.

Which is to say that “the liberal media” is a bullshit term spewed by RWs who are unhappy that their ideology and agendas are not being presented to their own satisfaction.

[nearwildheaven]

@Bayard

There was once a poster around here who claimed that the Sunday *New York Times *magazine had liberal recipes. He never explained what a liberal recipe was.

Maybe they called for organic, free-range ingredients.

[Spice_Weasel]

@Bayard

There was once a poster around here who claimed that the Sunday *New York Times *magazine had liberal recipes. He never explained what a liberal recipe was.

It almost certainly involved arugula.

[Wesley_Clark]

@Bayard

So, honest snark-free question for those who do see PBS and NPR as liberal: can you describe where you see the bias there, or provide some examples?

For PBS I’d say Bill Moyers show & David Brancaccio were liberal news men.

[Ranger_Jeff]

“Liberal media” or “Lame media” is a current catchphrase used by those taking a “Big Lie” approach to PR. That is to say, if you repeat a lie often enough and loudly enough, some people will believe it.

[davidm]

@Spice_Weasel

It almost certainly involved arugula.

I was going to post that! Anything with arugula or that has a french name. Watercress is also suspect as is quiche. Also, any coffee drink that involves anything beyond cream or sugar.

I’m not sure why conservatives seem to have a hangup with food. I suppose it’s part of their unease with any kind of cultural change.

[Defensive_Indifference]

@Wesley_Clark

For PBS I’d say Bill Moyers show & David Brancaccio were liberal news men.

OK. Moyers is a liberal (I’m less familiar with Brancaccio). However, PBS also has conservative commentators on shows like “Inside Washington” and “The McLaughlin Group” (which I know is syndicated but most PBS stations show it). So how do you (general you) weigh the overall bias?

[Wesley_Clark]

@Bayard

OK. Moyers is a liberal (I’m less familiar with Brancaccio). However, PBS also has conservative commentators on shows like “Inside Washington” and “The McLaughlin Group” (which I know is syndicated but most PBS stations show it). So how do you (general you) weigh the overall bias?

Valid counterpoints. I am not really sure, I never watched those shows.

[eschereal]

must

have

beef

(iowa corn fed)

[Rick_Kitchen]

@Wesley_Clark

The real liberal media would be msnbc, alternet, pbs, maybe npr.

What I’ve never got are the conservatives who think all media outlets that aren’t conservative are by default liberal. Msnbc is not the same thing as abc.

ABC News last night ran a report on how the Keystone Pipeline is going to create loads of jobs. Not exactly a liberal position.

[Duckster]

Walter Cronkite said:

“I think being a liberal, in the true sense, is being nondoctrinaire, nondogmatic, non-committed to a cause - but examining each case on its merits. Being left of center is another thing; it’s a political position. I think most newspapermen by definition have to be liberal; if they’re not liberal, by my definition of it, then they can hardly be good newspapermen. If they’re preordained dogmatists for a cause, then they can’t be very good journalists; that is, if they carry it into their journalism."

[Interview with Ron Powers (Chicago Sun Times) for Playboy, 1973]”

Quote by Walter Cronkite: “I think being a liberal, in the true sense, is ...”

[John_Mace]

@Wesley_Clark

For PBS I’d say Bill Moyers show & David Brancaccio were liberal news men.

I don’t know about DB, but BM is not a newscaster on PBS. His show is commentary. PBS really only has The New Hour as pure news (maybe also the Nightly Business Report, but that’s more specialized). And then maybe you could add in Frontline as a documentary show that focuses on current events-- PBS"s version of 60 Minutes.

[Hail_Ants]

Liberal media is like obscenity: I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it…

[TBG]

@Bayard

OK. Moyers is a liberal (I’m less familiar with Brancaccio). However, PBS also has conservative commentators on shows like “Inside Washington” and “The McLaughlin Group” (which I know is syndicated but most PBS stations show it). So how do you (general you) weigh the overall bias?

And Fox News has liberal commentators like Bob Beckel, but it still doesn’t stop rabid lefties from bitching the shit out of them.

[BigT]

@Shodan

The liberal media includes CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN. MSNBC, PBS, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, and The LA Times. The regular media includes CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN. MSNBC, PBS, NPR, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, The LA Times, and FoxNews.

Regards,
Shodan

You’re not allowed to be funny in semi-political threads.

[Heffalump_and_Roo]

@Bayard

So, honest snark-free question for those who do see PBS and NPR as liberal: can you describe where you see the bias there, or provide some examples?

I see it most in religious topics. PBS and NPR are supposed to be educational, so they lean towards explaining things with science. You would probably say, of course, that’s how things should be explained. But for religious people who think that science is a form of belief, the religious side doesn’t get as much air time. I’m not religious, but I can see how some people might get that impression.

I also see a slant towards women’s issues in media like HuffPo. When there’s an item with a woman’s issue in it, HuffPo will ring the bell loud and clear.

@eschereal

Which is to say that “the liberal media” is a bullshit term spewed by RWs who are unhappy that their ideology and agendas are not being presented to their own satisfaction.

OK, but do their ideology and agendas reflect the ideology and agendas of a large segment of society? If so, then should they be reflected as if they do?

[GIGObuster]

@TBG

And Fox News has liberal commentators like Bob Beckel, but it still doesn’t stop rabid lefties from bitching the shit out of them.

Sounds a lot like the observation Al Franklin made about Colmes then, not a very effective counter to Hannity and FOX news knows it and sets it up. Bob Beckel seems like a FOX news liberal.

Bob Beckel

[Defensive_Indifference]

@TBG

And Fox News has liberal commentators like Bob Beckel, but it still doesn’t stop rabid lefties from bitching the shit out of them.

Moyers, Inside Washington, The McLaughlin Group, etc., are a fairly small portion of PBS programming. The majority of its programs are not news related. Fox News, on the other hand, is mostly made up of news and commentary. So I don’t think there is much of a parallel between the bias on PBS and Fox. NPR has more hard news than PBS, so maybe the parallel is a little closer there. Do you perceive PBS as having a liberal slant that’s as heavy as Fox’s conservative slant? And if so, where do you see the liberal slant in the PBS programming that’s not news or commentary (Sesame Street, Nova, Secrets of the Dead, Antiques Roadshow, Frugal Gourmet…)

@Heffalump_and_Roo

I see it most in religious topics. PBS and NPR are supposed to be educational, so they lean towards explaining things with science. You would probably say, of course, that’s how things should be explained. But for religious people who think that science is a form of belief, the religious side doesn’t get as much air time. I’m not religious, but I can see how some people might get that impression.

OK, I can see that those who are religious would see that as bias. You’re right to guess that I don’t see it that way, but if I were devout I imagine I might feel left out of a fair amount of PBS programming.

[GIGObuster]

@Heffalump_and_Roo

OK, but do their ideology and agendas reflect the ideology and agendas of a large segment of society? If so, then should they be reflected as if they do?

I like the reply Neil Degrasse Tyson made, and it is that one should not forget that there are also Republicans that are aware of what science is and they do know that there will be limits to keep on supporting some ideologies and agendas in this case for schools, but I think it applies to public media sources too. Not very likely that PBS or NPR will change, so FOX will do to attract the science denier crowd.

Neil deGrasse Tyson on Science Literacy (Part Two) | Moyers & Company | BillMoyers.com [Transcript button]

BILL MOYERS: All right. According to the Pew Research Center, back in 2009, a comfortable majority of Republicans accepted human evolution as a fact. But now, a plurality rejects it. So I ask you, politics can trump science, can’t it?

NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: Well, in a free, elected democracy, of course. You vote who you want on your school board. There is no provision in the constitution for the government to establish what’s taught in schools. That’s all relegated to the states. Hence, we speak state to state about what’s in their science textbook versus another.

And so that’s the country we’ve all sort of bought into, if you will, or born into. I think it’s a self-correcting phenomenon. Nobody wants to die, okay? So we all care about health. But above all else, among the Republicans I know, especially Republicans, nobody wants to die poor, okay?

So educated Republicans know the value of innovations in science and technology for the thriving of an economy and business and industry. They know this. If you put something that is not science in a science classroom, pass it off as science, then you are undermining an entire enterprise that was responsible for creating the wealth that we have come to take for granted in this country. So we’re already fading economically. If this, if that trend continues, some Republican is going to wake up and say, “Look guys, we got to split these two. We have to. Otherwise, we will doom ourselves to poverty.” And so I see it as a self-correcting, I don’t know when it’ll happen, but they know.