Who uses the word "Liberal or Conservative"?????

Question

Here's how i know if a news program is fair and balanced. If the host doesn't refer to name calling...ie: "liberal or conservative"...and focus on the news itself, than it's probably not bias.
So, people, tell me who uses those words perpetually by the minute?

Answer 1

well, sometimes the words are necessary, because some people and organizations personally describe themselves that way (i.e. - Michael Moore or the Heritage Foundation).

according to the AP style book (which is the bible of words that can and can't be used in print media) says that neither term should be used, unless the person or organization use it for themselves.

also, bias is usually more in the tone and use of words. if a source seems unusually harsh towards anyone, it's biased. But, some people (like Hunter S. Thompson) believe that there is no such thing as unbiased media, as no one can prevent their own bias from affecting a story (sometimes people do it without realizing it).

how can you tell? listen to everything you possible can, and take it with a grain of salt.

Answer 2

You seem to have a very narrow and not particularly discriminating standard.
What I look for is equal treatment of all sides. For example, if a news source doesn't do a story about politicians of one party being investigated for campaign finance fraud, then when they're convicted it buries it in a small story on page thirty.
Then, when the opposing party is accused of the same crime the accusation is given a headline, the story is run on the front page repeatedly, then when the charges are thrown out because there was never any evidence in the first place the story is buried on page thirty.
You see the difference, no mention of liberal or conservative is ever made. The main reason they never mention those labels is specifically to distract people from the differences in coverage, if they never say those words it helps create the illusion that they treat both the same.
Most of those who use these labels are often trying to counteract the bias that they've seen in other coverage by highlighting the very differnces that the biased reporters don't want you to notice.
This is done far more than most people realize, if you keep repeating something often enough, it creats the impression that it is true, then when facts disprove it people tend not to notice and keep believing the falsehood.
Study how the Nazis constatly demonized the Jews. After a while the bulk of the population was willing to believe their wild conspiracy theories, even though no evidence was ever presented to back up the ridiculous claims.
When you're done, start looking at the coverage by news media of today. Look at all the 'scandals' that on further investigation don't have evidence to support them. Look at the 'lies' that were never uttered, or were in fact true. Look at the 'failures' that when compared objectively with other efforts were in fact successes.
Starting about thirty years ago journalists stopped being people who worked their way up through a news organisation learning to uncover facts, and started to be graduates of Journalism schools who were, in their own words "out to change the world".
The schools they came out of were for the most part not staffed by professional reporters, after all, they didn't have PHD's. They were staffed by activist academics from the sixties, and what they knew from their activist days wasn't journalism, it was proaganda.
Today the news media is controlled by these propagandists, and they are doing their best to reshape the world in accordance with their views. If the facts have to be suppresed because they will reinforce the oppositions claims, then they are suppressed. If certain 'facts' have to be embelished, reshaped, or even manufactured in order for people to think the way the "changers of the world" want them to think, then that's what is done.
If you don't believe me ask yourselves, how many of you "know" that Clinton had a budget surplus, "know" that Gore won the popular vote in 2000, "know" that Bush is a major stockholder in Haliburton, "know" that Bush lied about WMD's. I could go on with dozens of examples. Just check these out, not on some left wing blog, but from legitimate, primary souces.
When I studied the history of World Was II and the Nazi movement I wondered how so many people could be fooled by such obviously false propaganda. Having watched the way news has been manipulated over the last three decades I now understand. People are too lazy to think about details, they get a general impression and believe it's correct without ever checking it.
I have always considered myself a Liberal in the FDR, JFK mold. Over the last 30-40 years I've seen so many illiberal things done in the name of Liberalism that I'm ashamed of what it now represents. I don't want to defend the Bush administration because I do disagree with some of what's been done, but when I see so many outright lies being foisted on the American people, and being believed by people who should be smart enough to know better I have to point out that we're being lied to.

Answer 3

Most "drive-by" media don't have to use these terms. It is just assumed by them that their readers or listeners have the same mind-set as themselves. These kinds of hosts and editors blend news with commentary like a strawberry-banana smoothie....but sometimes the lumps kind of stick in the straw.

Conservative talk and news uses these terms "liberally" because they have to make sure their audience knows the distinctions. To be able to understand the distinctions, gives the audience a fair assessment of the issues. Their views are more like a fresh-fruit salad... able to chew and experience the zest of each distinct flavor.

Answer 4

Down right here in West Texas, surrounded by skill of a seeming majority of Conservative voters, it seems to me like Liberal merely skill somebody who's to blame for each thing it somewhat is faulty with our u . s . a ., at any given time. They pay attention nonstop to Fox information yet they does no longer be caught ineffective listening to Jon Stewart. It took them a jiffy to realize that Stephen Colbert replaced into no longer truly on their area. they're rapid to have self belief that the two coasts have all of the Liberals, long island and California, the place them fancy people stay. yet those are no longer undesirable people, they're merely somewhat petrified of being bossed around by skill of Northerners, whom they're beneficial are all those dreaded Liberals. Their church homes are slightly too in contact interior the political section, too, so as that they get bombarded with this point of view all week, even on Sunday.

Answer 5

Well i don't think it's not fair and balanced if it uses Liberal and conservative. Ican't figure out how you know their isn't a right slant but you can find out that it isn't liberal-biased if they use the word "Radical" when talking to politicians. Actually if they used the word "Radical" when talking about politicians it's probably right wing slanted.

Answer 6

Canadians:
2 of there main political parties are Liberal and Conservative

Links

http://www.liberal.ca/default_e.aspx

http://www.conservative.ca/

Good Luck

Answer 7

Rush Limbaugh, Neal Bortz, FOX, any "conservative" news outlet.