A beginner's work in progress.......
and certain sicko's ad hominem attacks against liberals
Published on February 17, 2005 By dabe In Politics
This is a repost, because I deleted my previous article. Apparently there is a bug in the featured articles that allows sickos like mod and dr to pollute others posts. Sorry that I also deleted all the replies, but such if life.

(Please, draginol, do not feature any of my artilces until that bug is fixed. Thank you in advance.)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Much to my surprise, and for reasons I just don't understand, I was able to post to moderateman's blog. I was reponding to his hyperbolic vitriol about liberal media bias, yet another anti-liberal bash, which is bullshit. But, he just kept on deleting my messages (hehehehehe........) because facts just get in the way of his bashing bullshit. So, I post here exactly what I had posted in his ranting blog, in its entirely, and unchanged.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has on its website a report conducted by the Virginia Commonwealth University .Link which evaluates the myth of liberal media bias that is so often advanced by conservatives. In that report, which is based on survey results that included most of the mainstream media outlets, they have found that the media is predominantly conservative, with only environmental issues being of a more left leaning ilk. The intro of the report states:

"But even some progressives have been willing to cede to conservatives the first point: that journalists' views are to the left of the public. Professionals in general, they observe, often have "liberal" leanings on social issues and there is no reason to expect journalists to be any different. However, they have also argued convincingly that the norms of "objective journalism" and the powerful corporate interests which own and sponsor the news media ensure that news content never strays too far, for too long, from protecting the status quo. You don't understand the corporate ideology of General Motors by studying the personal beliefs of the assembly-line workers, the argument goes. Ideological orientation is introduced and enforced by those high in the organizational hierarchy who have the power to hire and fire, to reward and punish. Working journalists, despite their sometimes high visibility, usually do not call the shots in the nation's media corporations. (The documentary "Fear and Favor in the Newsroom" provides vivid illustrations of this situation.) Consequently, the private views of individual journalists often matter little."

In the report's conclusion, it goes on to state:

"This survey shows that it is a mistake to accept the conservative claim that journalists are to the left of the public. There appear to be very few national journalists with left views on economic questions like corporate power and trade—issues that may well matter more to media owners and advertisers than social issues like gay rights and affirmative action.

The larger "liberal media" myth has been maintained, in part, by the well-funded flow of conservative rhetoric that selectively highlights journalists' personal views while downplaying news content. It also has been maintained by diverting the spotlight away from economic issues and placing it instead on social issues. In reality, though, most members of the powerful Washington press corps identify themselves as centrist in both of these areas."

In other words, check the source of your reports. If a conservative leaning individual, even if he claims "moderation" whines about liberal media bias, take it with a grain of salt. Particularly if no links are posted. And, particularly if it is in inself whining bullcrap.

In other words, the media is not liberal biased. It's a myth perpetrated by righties to hammer their own agendas and propaganda.

In other words, this is a prime example of ad hominem attacks perpetrated by conservatives, because they have nothing else to base their arguments upon (added here).

Comments
on Feb 17, 2005

For example, I view CBS, ABC, CNN, and NBC as corporate -- essentially jellyfish, they blow hot & cold these days. I think ABC does the best job of the three. And none of them touch outlets like the CBC & the BBC.

If by "liberally biased," you mean "not as psychotically right wing as FOX," then I agree

Liberally biased in terms of which stories they choose to report (and not report). Which pundits they will have on.

FOX is certainly right wing. No doubt about it.  But it's no more right wing than say CNN is left-wing.

I made it my living last year to watch all these shows very carefully and at length as part of my research for The Political Machine.  Fox News IS rightwing.  But MSNBC and CNN are quite left wing.  Countdown (MSNBC), for instance, is far more left wing than O'Reilly is right wing.

And the Beltway Boys, hosted by a right wing Republican and a conservative Democrat certainly tilts right. On the other hand, CNN's Capital Gang is blatantly left wing.

But bias is a subtle thing.  Fox News calls suicide bombers "terrorists".  CBS calls them "Militants".  Fox News calls pro-lifers "abortion opponents".  CNN calls them "Anti-Choice activists". 

Fox News with Brit Hume has a 2 minute segment entitled "The Grapevine" that is basically right wing slamming of left wing people.  CBS, by contrast, runs episode upon episode of left wing claptrap in the form of 60 Minutes ("Yes, we get it corporations are EEEEEVILLL and all our problems can only be solved if we just get the benevolent government to solve it..") 

CBS can't get enough of exposing some company ripping off the innocents.  But ABC's John Stossel gets tarred and feathered by liberals when he does show on government waste and corruption.

John Stossel on ABC is a pretty lonely conservative though.  ABC's Sunday morning show is hosted by George Stephanopolous, Clinton's former Press Secretary.  He is objective in his manner but the topics that get covered and how they are covered is decidely liberal. But hey, they have George Will, arch-conservative on there so that's okay right?

Then there's NPR which is so left wing that there's really nothing salvageable there.  Another morning of Diane Rheim asking her guest tough questions like "Do you think Bush is anti-environment or just doesn't understand the effects of his policies?" and other such objective coverage.  Of course, Fresh Air with Terry Gross treats any claim by a liberal attack book as "truth" and any claim by a conservative attack book with extreme skepticism.

Bias is hard to prove in any sort of objective sense. But there are some ways that make it hard to deny there's a liberal bias. For instance, various groups have simply kept track of how often the political bias of a given guest is reported. 

For instance, in the rare events that someone from the NRA is on, they will make it clear that they're from the NRA, a conservative group.  By contrast, someone from an anti-gun group is rarely identified as being part of an anti-gun group. Liberal groups are far less likely to be identified as such.  That is where bias comes in - many, if not most, journalists believe that th eliberal point of view IS the center and therefore those who have their liberal views need not be identified because those groups are objective.

That's why you end up with things like what Dabe posted where she starts rattling off reports from FAIR as if it's an objective, non-partisan group.  That's what bias does and how it shows up on TV, newspapers, etc.  A left wing person will represent a left wing group's info without disclosing their ideology.  So if you want to see bias in action, look no further than Dabe's use of a left-wing source without any sort of mention that they are a left leaning group. That's bias.

BTW, media owners don't sit there and micro manage what's on the air. They are more concerned about the bottom line. Liberal bias in the media isn't some conspiracy. It's not malicious. It's not even intentional. It's a natural side-effect of the people who write editorials, the producers who decide what stories to cover, having a certain world view. It's well documented, it's well known in media circles. And the good media outlets fight against it. But when you think your world view is centrist, it ends up scuing thigns.  You end up quoting left wing "media research" outlets without mentioning that they're a left leaning group because to you, it seems perfectly balanced and reasonable.

on Feb 17, 2005
It's sad that you are so incapable of even dealing with moderate disagreement (drmiller and modman aside) that you have to delete comments, lock threads etc. Are you really that insecure about the position you're arguing?

It's people like you that give liberals a bad name.
on Feb 17, 2005
I was not going to comment on this obvious repost, but I have to say take a chill pill.  End your war with Moderateman.  neither of you are advancing your agenda, instead you are appearing to be an insolent child bent on vengence.  Take it to a higher, more adult level and just ignore him if you cant stand him.
on Feb 17, 2005
It's sad that you are so incapable of even dealing with moderate disagreement (drmiller and modman aside) that you have to delete comments, lock threads etc. Are you really that insecure about the position you're arguing?It's people like you that give liberals a bad name.


I am not at all insecure about my position. Not at all. The reason I locked, and deleted my last article is that mod posted about a dozen hate filled replies on it. At least a dozen. There is this bug in the featured articles that allows blacklisted assholes to post. I deleted the article to remove it from the featured place, thereby disabling mod's crap and venom on my blog. After all, it's my blog, and I can do what I want.

So, what is it about this that makes you think I give liberals a bad name? If you take the time to read mod's venom about me, which I do believe is a violation of this site, then why aren't you posting a response to him asking him why he thinks he would be advancing the cause of conservatives? If this isn't an example of a righty's double standard, I dunno what is.
on Feb 17, 2005
I was not going to comment on this obvious repost, but I have to say take a chill pill. End your war with Moderateman. neither of you are advancing your agenda, instead you are appearing to be an insolent child bent on vengence. Take it to a higher, more adult level and just ignore him if you cant stand him.


Dr. Guy, you and I have disagreed on numerous occasions, but never have I found the need to resort to blacklisting you, or even disrespecting you. We obviously live by opposite philosophies. You state your points. I state mine. That's what it's all about.

Yes, this is obviously a repost, and I said such right in the beginning. I don't post counter arguments just because I can't stand moderateman or feel any need for vengence. I post them because I just find the need to counter his lame and ad hominen attacks against liberals in general and his arguments which are ususally devoid of any substance. I post my articles so that other's articles, like mod's are not read without a counterpoint. That is really all.

Now, go take a look at that lunatic's latest post about me. It has absolutely nothing about what I may have said to debunk his articles. It's just a venomous post with zero substance, and as I said above, qualifies him to be blacklisted from joeuser completely. Will draginol step up to the plate and do so? He did it with Wise Fawn. He did it St. Hubbins. He should also do it with moderateman. I may have called him a sicko, as he has called me comperable names over and over and over in his postings. But this latest crap is way over the top.

Hey Draginol? Please do the right thing and blacklist the bum, before he gives himself a heart attack..
on Feb 17, 2005
BTW, media owners don't sit there and micro manage what's on the air. They are more concerned about the bottom line.


Oh, I think you're wrong here. Media owners definitely micromanage to the extent that they will not allow an anit Bush article unless they absolutely have to (ie it's been totally exposed already). And you're right about the bottom line. Mainsteam media isn't about news anymore. It's about ratings, advertising and the bottom line. Period.
on Feb 17, 2005
Thanks, guy. I have never called you an idiot. But, with mod's bullshit posts, you find the need to trash me. Real nice........ NOT
on Feb 17, 2005
There is an entertainment bias in the media. Everything is for ratings.
on Feb 17, 2005
There is an entertainment bias in the media. Everything is for ratings.



In a nutshell, that's one of my points. News should be about news; about how reporters used to hunt after news and report it, with integrity. Now, it's not that. News is basically, "If it bleeds, it leads." Regardless that it may not be very significant. But, I have to say, news is driven by ratings. And, if only the "bleeding" stories get ratings, then the collective "we" get only what we want. Not, what is important. What is society coming to, anyway? So sad.