Why do people call the media "Liberal"?

Question

Doesn't anyone remember the '04 election? the media trashed Kerry.. the pictures they posted of him looked horrid.... and everything was the exact opposite for Bush... they were tailored to their audience.. at the time Bush still had a decent amount of support from the nation and media... well now Bush has a 30% approval rating.. is it any suprise that the capitolist media would tailor themselves yet again to their audience? there is more money to be made in the 70% than in the 30%... In other words they aren't making people believe Bush is bad.. or rather they aren't the cause of that.. they are a reflection of what the populace feels and are cashing in on that.. and seriously.. if they were trying to destroy Bush or the Republicans.. don't you think they could do a MUCH better job of it? It's rather easy for the media to destroy someones life if they choose to. Sure, there may be a couple of far left shows.. but there are just as many of the far right.. and to be honest probably

more of them, at least here in the south.. I know on the radio there are about 5 times as many republican talk shows as there are liberal talk shows.. the newspapers all lean a little to the right here as well.. ... .. to sum it up.. people shouldn't be complaining so much about it.. it's just going to swing the other way if the money swings that way anyway.. instead of complaining find multiple media outlets and form your own opinions.. have you ever considered that?

Answer 1

Ultimately, it's because the right-wing media strategy has been to force the media to shift-right. The primary method of doing this is by constantly shifting the definition of "liberal".

Liberalism is, essentially, rational and measured beliefs. Liberalism isn't exactly leftism... it's a slight bit left of center, truth be told. So, much of the media probably *is* liberal, but that's not what the right-wingers mean. When they say "liberal" they mean "extreme left with a bias".

This is the right-wing strategy at work. If, in the real world of political beliefs, liberalism is a slight bit left of center, then the way to make liberal more "leftist" in the minds of the people is to shift the operational definition of liberal further to the left.

This makes "moderate" seem like it leans more to the right than it does, to the brainwashed masses.

This forces the news media to move more and more to the right to appear "unbiased" and avoid those accusations, but the news media has to remain at least somewhat journalistic, hence the accusations of the news media being liberal, even though it's actually further to the right than it is moderate.

It all comes down to the righties actively re-defining the term "liberal". It's Orwellian, it's dangerously smart, and it's something the good side has to learn from. He who controls the language controls the way people feel about the world.

So, it's basically all a big lie... but it's a well-engineered lie. The constant accusations that the media is liberal is part of trying to force it to the right.

Edit: Hey C B, your blind bias is showing again. Only remembering one news story doesn't exactly prove your position.

Edit2: Alright, those saying that the number of "positive" stories about the republican candidate versus the democratic candidate proves bias are showing their own bias, too... and a lack of journalistic knowledge.

It never occurred to the rodent right-wing brain that perhaps they chose bad people to back, and hence that would be why there were fewer positive stories about their candidates?

Noo.. that can't be it... the media MUST be lying. Right... what we need in here is a team of psychiatrists. The righties are having a "lapse" again.

Answer 2

There has never been any 'liberal media'. What the conservative nuts are really talking about, is in fact independant media, about how ordinary people have used the power of the internet and their power of free speech to write in big block capitals what they really feel about the administration, how they feel about the feverish atmosphere of racism, how they are seeing their own hometowns fall into decline while the mayor gets rich beyond his dreams.

It's a great strategy. After all the tireless efforts of small, cash strapped, disillusioned people, why not use the same tactics of the left and pretend to 'expose' them, 'debunk' their theories, 'disprove' the evidence. Why not go back to the old enemies - socialists and communists - and put the blame on them. Some of these people aren't trying to prove a political point, but that doesn't matter, the people in power are.

I blame conservatives because their manipulation of the media knows no bounds. I talked here about Bush called his opposition the 'democrat party' and how that was actually a big deal, you should have the decency to call your opposition properly. But no one bats an eyelid. The media environment is stifling and in practicality pro-state but when socialists point out that these media companies have dealings with powerful politicians, very often conservatives, it's as if it doesn't matter. Is it any surprise the 'vets for truth' campaign on Kerry was actually BS? Or a hundred other falsified documents used as 'smoking gun evidence'. It's quite obvious now that these companies are working to spread fiction, and these small independants cannot keep up with multi-million dollar studios and stations.

And there probably has been manipulation on both sides but that's not the point is it? The solid truth is that if the dems were sinking as low as the cons then wouldn't the media be full of hateful smears on the administration. There ARE, but that hate is in the internet, it is in the public, it is not being spoken by a newsreader on a goddamn murdoch payroll. And the little TV stations? These people have to make a living too and the money is in sucking up to government. Say something out of line and you don't just lose business - you get closed down.

So if you want to call it liberal media or liberal hate then go ahead. But the difference is the hate against liberals is fabricated out of the irrational fear of socialism. The liberals though, their hate is real.

Answer 3

When people talk about the Liberal Media they are talking about the mainstream media, i.e. CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, The New York Times, The L.A. Times, etc...Fox does lean towards the Right, but that is one out of many...since you say you are a Southerner, you should know by now that they South is a Conservative area, and you should expect the Media in the South to reflect the views of the people who live here...most Southerners could care less what the "Yankee" news outlets have to say...in many places in the South you can not throw a rock without hitting a church, so the media reflects the values that we hold down here...about your percentages that you posted, have you ever been called by a pollster to be asked your opinion? I haven't and probably never will because the major news outlets want to to that what they are saying true so they do their polls in areas where they know they will get the answers they want...I see polls all the time on t.v., but the other day I read in one of the Souths most Liberal Newspapers, The Decatur Daily in Decatur, Alabama, where they did a poll on the Democratic Presidential Candidates and the majority said they would not vote for any of them, but if that poll would have been done in say New Hampshire, it would have been different...so just face it the South is Conservative and not Liberal...why do you think Kerry did not campaign down here? He knew it was a lost cause...

Answer 4

Well okay people never get the connection to Nazi Germany that some people try to make, saying oh how can you call Bush Hitler and what not.
I never say Bush is Hitler, that is a ridiculous claim to make. What I mean is that they ( Bush and Co.) have taken Hitlers ideas of controlling the people and implemented them here and now.

Anyone with half a brain can tell you that the media is not liberally biased. The media in America is a joke. It is all propaganda and watered down nonsense and entertainment stories. You truly have to look at foreign news sources to see what is going on in the outside world.We are very sheltered by the media here in America.

Simply they believe the media is liberal because this lie is the "big lie" that Bush and Co started to get people to believe them. If they can get the people to believe the media is liberal and therefor untrustworthy they can discredit and mock any news story that does not fit their agenda or push the view they want pushed.

Answer 5

The Republicans label the media as being "liberal" because they can't take the bad press. Anytime the press points out a negative aspect about GOP leadership (or Policy), they get defensive and accuse the entire media of being liberal. This is an attempt (and is obviously very effective) to competely discredit the news that the media is reporting. The "liberal media" label is a shout out to all Conservatives that all unbiased media should be ignored, and only Fox News, O'Reilly, and Limbaugh should be supplying the information.

Answer 6

Because in the past 2 elections, the number of news reports that were favorable to the Democrat candidate was over 50% more than favorable news items for the Republican candidate. And the number of unfavorable news items for the Republican candidate significantly exceeded the unfavorable reports on the Democrat canditate. That points to "bias" by any objective standard.

And while I don't have the numbers, I would bet that favorable news items for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker has already exceeded favorable news reports on Newt Gingrich as Speaker for his entire tenure. We could also compare the gushing gleeful welcome of Pelosi and the Dems as majority party by Big Media as opposed to the grim shock on display after the GOP won Congress in 1994.

In study after study, it has been proven that in most Big Media newsrooms, over 80% of the personnel vote Democrat. That bias in political beliefs overflows into the reporting, even if it is not done consciously or deliberately. This is what liberal newsman Bernie Goldberg wrote about in his book "Bias". It was not a conscious decision, but when the newsroom is basically a left-leaning echo-chamber, should anybody be surprised that news would tilt leftward?

If a newsroom voted over 80% Republican, would you think they could report without any bias? No, you would accept the fact that it would be naturally biased, as would I. So why would I believe that Democrat-voters would not be similarly biased?

We could look at the long running stories about Bush's alleged AWOL, including forgeries, "fake but accurate", and "it's about the seriousness of the allegations", etc, versus the NON-reporting about Kerry's lies about Vietnam in Congressional testimony, his visits with the Viet Cong during the Paris peace talks, and the fact the media simply dismissed the allegations of the Swift Boat Veterans without even addressing one single charge they had. That's bias.
-------------
Also, it is mostly about the national news - ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, from New York and the print media of the coasts - NYTimes, WaPo, Boston Glob, LATimes. Local news might be mixed and reflect the community, but national news doesn't.

Answer 7

The only thing that sticks in my mind about the 2004 media coverage was a report by Dan Rather. If you don't think that was biased you are in denial.

Liberals dominate almost every major newsroom in the country. That is a fact. Like it or not their agenda comes across all sorts of ways from snide comments to biased tag lines.

Just because Democrats eat their own does not mean that they don't exist in the media. Look at what happened to Lieberman.

If you don't think the media has a liberal bias perhaps you might be interested in buying some real estate from me. It is oceanfront in Arizona.

Answer 8

If you don't talk wonders about the Republicans then you're a liberal. Is the same with the media, a couple of criticism at the Bush administration and they brand the media as liberal.

Answer 9

Look at Cindy Sheehan. The liberal media swept her away and used her as their poster child against the war. And anyone who would dare to say anything against her stance would immediatly be painted as incencitive or uncaring. Don't you find it interesting that they did not try to find one of the hundreds of mothers out there who had a child who died in the war and still rally to support the cause.
Where is Sheehan now though? Well, much like Micheal Moore, the liberal media has gotten their use out of her and thrown her by the wayside like a half-drinken bottle of warm soda.
Kerry made himself look bad and lost his own election. Elections are all about charisma. Like Gore, Kerry chose to try so hard to make himself look smart and sophisticated, that he did not relate to the common person. It's all about Charisma, nothing about issues. Can you name an election in recent history where the person with the least charisma won? Bush/Kerry, Bush/Gore, Clinton/Dole, Clinton/Bush, Bush/Dukakis, Reagan/Mondale, even Kennedy/Nixon.
Think about it.

Answer 10

Look at the difference in coverage for libs compared to dems.
Tom Delay vs. William Jefferson
Look at the number of anti Bush stories in the paper.
Scooter Libby vs. Sandy Berger

Fox news seems ultra right wing only because the other networks are so far left.

Read the editorial staffs election recommendations of almost any newspaper during any election and you will see them supporting democrats over republicans at least three to one.

Of course its hard to recognize if you're a liberal yourself.