Why do "conservatives" always complain of media bias when, frankly, they don't read a newpaper of note

Question

I have always found the NYT and Washington Post to be papers of note with hard hitting reporting and stories. BTW, both papers have had editorials SUPPORTING Iraq. But a paper is MUCJ more than its editorials...

Answer 1

It's part of conservative mythology that they're an oppressed group who have few, if any, sympathetic outlets in the media. It allows them to achieve cohesion in an "us against the world" scenario.

Answer 2

The bias is because of 2 things.

1) The nature of a reporter is to question and not trust things. Often that is to question government or to enact change. That is more in line with Liberalism.
2) The nature of the media outlet itself is to make money and bad news sells more papers. For example, if the econmy is good, the papers report how interest is rising, but when interest rates are low, its stories about how the econmy is bad. In times like now, with Republicans in power, most of that is bad news toward Republians.

Almost all papers have editorials of both sides. Its the stories themselves that show the bias of the paper. Even just the headline at times. For example, two headlines I saw on the exact same story about the AF Academy... One said Sexual Harassment Persists at the AF Academy Despite Efforts. The second article was titled, Sexual Harassement down to 6% at the Air Force Academy. Both articles were the same, the titles say what they think people want to hear. Most people barely get past the headlines when they start talking here.

Also, most liberals I know dont read papers either.

Answer 3

I think labeling conservatives always complain is a bit far, the Times is admittedly liberal oriented editorially, all press is biased when you look at the facts, sponsors pay for the paper much more than subscribers, so they influence things, be it right or left. Balanced reporting hasn't been around since well I am in my late 50s and I never saw it. Ive seen just as many complaints about fox news, etc. so complaints maybe all that's balanced

Answer 4

Perhaps because study after study shows the bias is real. I suggest you check out those studies, and take some time to read some of the criticism of specific articles of the Times, Post, which can regularly be found on such sites as Drudge Report, thatliberalmedia.com, newsbuster.org, mrc.org.

Here's a good place to start: http://mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp

Once a source has proven itself not to be reliable, not to be trusted, that it doesn't correct its own errors, that it hires unqualified writers, doesn't check their sources, promotes them, and features their stories, when CBS News defends Rather and fake documents, I think many realize most high school newspapers have higher journalistic and ethical standards.

PS: Editorials are one thing. It's when the allegedly straight news is slanted that it's a problem. A paper can take any editorial position they want, if they get the FACTS right on the news pages. Very few papers, and none that you mention, do.

Answer 5

I am a "conservative". Of course I don't read newspapers but I do have RSS feed from most major papers in the US. I also get them from the BBC, Al Jezerra, and several other major points of interest around the world. Every news source usual has some type of bias. I always try to read all points of view and make my own decision. Typically, they all fall conservative. Years ago when I lived in Washington I did subscribe to the Post and not the Times (Washington). They just have a lot more content.

Answer 6

Yes, it is funny. The liberal media didn't sway the vote in 2000 or 2004. The media wants to make money. They will have whatever bias does that. It just so happens to be liberal. I really think it is retarded for people to blame Obama for the stock market. If it is anyone's fault, it is the people ripping on the stimulus. No one knows what will happen. But if they take away the confidence of the people, the people will not buy.

Answer 7

Please....the NYT has been proven to be a left-leaning "news" source. I'm in the process of reading "All The President's Men" by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Washington Post and I believe they have good standards (well, back in the 70's they did).

Answer 8

well, obviously you read cover to cover because NO editorials are found on the front page. The front page space is too cluttered with such captivating headlines as "DEATH TOLL RISES IN IRAQ" or perhaps the intriguing "PRESIDENT'S APPROVAL RATING PLUMMETS".

I'm surprised you chose two extremely liberal rags to demonstrate your point. I would've at least would've tried to find something a little LESS obvious.

Answer 9

The Times and the Post are leftist rags.

This is the same line of garbage that leftists always spew.

Rather than argue the position, they just insinuate that the other side is uneducated and stupid.

I think that us "conservatives" are wise to your little Maoist game.

You look down your nose at us yet you try to win every argument with the same thoughtless tactic.

Answer 10

News Flash...NY Times readership and subscriptions are way down....the grand old lady of journalism has become a whore for the leftist nit wits in this country. They have lost just about all of their credibility.

Answer 11

Its simple...they are traitors to this country by printing secrets so our enemys can see...they have undercut this war and the people fighting it every chance they get.....they are losing readership and I can't wait for them to finally fold up and go forever........