Just can't resist...this time on media bias

[packsaddle]

kwc57, I understand. More than just a few I fear. The trouble with a name is that persons easily apply a name and thereby think they have explained something. Or they apply it to themselves and thereby think they understand something. Both are deceptions in their own way. It may be fun to use the term 'left-wing liberal' in the pejorative or 'bed-wetting conservative' for that matter. But, thus limited, the discussion is fairly superficial. Discussion of ideas is easier and more meaningful if not burdened by this stuff.

[NJCubScouter]

I have to admit that I do not watch Rather, Jennings, Brokaw, etc., so I have no opinion on whether they present the news in a biased manner. I am somewhat suspicious about the fact that the claims of "liberal bias" in these shows are always made by conservatives.

 

But I don't think it matters. The range of news sources is now so broad and diverse that the claims of "liberal bias," if they were ever correct, have become irrelevant. I get most of my news from the Internet, basically its the Associated Press and Reuters wires, and I think most people would agree that those services are fairly accurate and unbiased. I also sometimes watch Fox News Channel, where, by the way, I do NOT agree that a strict line is drawn between "news" and "opinion" on the conservative side. Fox News has news shows anchored by Tony Snow, who clearly skews things toward the right, and the same is true to a lesser extent of Brit Hume. As for O'Reilly, he does not acknowledge taking a conservative point of view, which is clearly what he does. He claims to be "fair and balanced" and that his show is a "no spin zone," which are ridiculous claims to make for a show that has an obvious ideological point of view.

 

I could go on. Anybody who thinks that the New York Times has a liberal bias, read the real leftist press (like the Village Voice) and you will see what leftists think of the New York Times. To them it is the voice of what used to be called the "Establishment," which is not a liberal institution, and of "big business."

 

And then there is the Washington Times. It claims to be a real newspaper, but it is a conservative mouthpiece -- and not just on the editorial pages. More people read the Washington Post, but I hear the Washington Times quoted every day, as if it were a real newspaper, on my friendly local talk radio station. Which is yet another example of "conservative media." The leading New York City talk radio station, WABC (which claims to be the most listened-to talk radio station in the U.S., which is probably true) has a lineup that is heavily tilted to the right. It is the station where both Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity's shows originate from (notwithstanding Rush's lofty references to the "EIB Building.") These shows are labeled as "opinion," but it is still all part of the "media."

[Rooster7]

I have to admit that I do not watch Rather, Jennings, Brokaw, etc., so I have no opinion on whether they present the news in a biased manner. I am somewhat suspicious about the fact that the claims of "liberal bias" in these shows are always made by conservatives.

 

If conservatives don't call people's attention to it, then who will? That's like saying I only hear blacks complain about police brutality.

 

But I don't think it matters. The range of news sources is now so broad and diverse that the claims of "liberal bias," if they were ever correct, have become irrelevant. I get most of my news from the Internet, basically its the Associated Press and Reuters wires, and I think most people would agree that those services are fairly accurate and unbiased.

 

You miss the point. Yes, there are plenty of different news sources. The concern for me and many other conservatives is that many folks don't realize that they are being fed more opinion than fact. Many folks blindly accept what they are fed.

 

I also sometimes watch Fox News Channel, where, by the way, I do NOT agree that a strict line is drawn between "news" and "opinion" on the conservative side. Fox News has news shows anchored by Tony Snow, who clearly skews things toward the right, and the same is true to a lesser extent of Brit Hume.

 

I think your accusation here can be argued. However, I will concede that there areor at least there must be some news media organizations that are guilty of hiding conservative politics.

 

As for O'Reilly, he does not acknowledge taking a conservative point of view, which is clearly what he does. He claims to be "fair and balanced" and that his show is a "no spin zone," which are ridiculous claims to make for a show that has an obvious ideological point of view.

 

I will acknowledge that he does claim to be un-bias. However, he also delineates what is fact and what is his opinion. Furthermore, it's apparent that he is a talk show host. He's not sitting in a news anchors chair reading a teleprompter as if this IS "tonight's news".

 

I could go on. Anybody who thinks that the New York Times has a liberal bias, read the real leftist press (like the Village Voice) and you will see what leftists think of the New York Times. To them it is the voice of what used to be called the "Establishment," which is not a liberal institution, and of "big business."

 

That's like saying anyone who thinks Sadam Hussein is a bad man intent on serving his own evil desires should read about Stalin and Hitler. There's no question that the New York Times has a liberal bias.

 

And then there is the Washington Times. It claims to be a real newspaper, but it is a conservative mouthpiece -- and not just on the editorial pages.

 

I'm from the Washington area. I disagree with your assessment of the Times. It reports the news fairly. Its editorials are definitely conservative though.

 

More people read the Washington Post, but I hear the Washington Times quoted every day, as if it were a real newspaper, on my friendly local talk radio station..

 

Yeah, and "Big Brother II" was a huge hit last year. It's still all garbage. The Washington Post is living off its past reputation. They haven't approached the news honestly since Watergate. Almost every story hints that the world is on the verge of destruction, if it were not for the protective hand of liberals who restrain the "evil and foolish urges" of conservatives. They take the race card, which the democrats play at the drop of a hat, and run with it at every opportunity. They are probably worse than the infamous New York Times. If it weren't for their Sports section and the TV guide, I wouldn't insult dead fish by wrapping them in it, and I'd have to pause before laying it out in a birdcage.

 

Which is yet another example of "conservative media." The leading New York City talk radio station, WABC (which claims to be the most listened-to talk radio station in the U.S., which is probably true) has a lineup that is heavily tilted to the right. It is the station where both Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity's shows originate from (notwithstanding Rush's lofty references to the "EIB Building."). These shows are labeled as "opinion," but it is still all part of the "media."

 

But that's the whole point - for the most part, conservative media organizations are honesty about their slant or bias. Opinion is labeled and advertised as opinion. There is a line drawn between Fox News and the Hannity & Colmes Show. They don't present the news laced with suggestive ideas about the principals or their motives. Liberals doAll the time.

[frankj]

In answer to Ed Mori, I think the Wall Street Journal has an excellent editorial page. They cover a wide range of issues and offer editorial opinion, that I believe, is well-thought out. Current international events; trade policy; energy policy (ANWAR); education (vouchers); tax policy; court decisions; natural resource issues -- these are some of the topics dealt with. I like the fact that they follow up on issues and events -- the progress of school vouchers is one that comes to mind. They have periodically reported/editorialized on this topic for a number of years as progress is made in this area.

 

There is a conservative slant, no question and they do not purport to give equal time to the other side, although Al Hunt is a regular columnist and Robert Reich (Clinton's Sec. of Labor) has written a number of pieces for them.

 

Firstpusk with regard to your comments you accuse the WSJ of a cheap shot -- aren't you doing the same when you characterize eisely and me as sucking up the information with a straw? When you attempt to belittle those who disagree with you, you don't help your case. The context you are concerned about was adequate so far as I am concerned. That you were not satisfied with it does not make me an uncritical reader and interpreter of news and editorial opinion.

 

Go Raiders.