Who Denies the Media is Bias?

Question

"When asked who would be a better president, the journalists from outside the Beltway picked Mr. Kerry 3 to 1, and the ones from Washington favored him 12 to 1. Those results jibe with previous surveys over the past two decades showing that journalists tend to be Democrats, especially the ones based in Washington. Some surveys have found that more than 80 percent of the Beltway press corps votes Democratic."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/01/politics/campaign/01points.html?ei=5090&en=11800ba25496a8cc&ex=1249099200&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&adxnnlx=1197162123-59vHWURUXdBQHupp+vEvXQ

Top Seattle Times Editor Admits Majority of Newsroom Votes 'Blue,' Driven by 'Activism'

http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/3/3/46C4434D0B99D33A/

Donation ratio appears to confirm leftward tilt in newsrooms --MSNBC

"MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions
from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the
public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the
newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to
Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/

Finally, 68% of journalists say they voted for John Kerry in 2004,
while only 25% voted for George W. Bush. Only 1% say they voted for
Nader, and 5% say they did not vote.

George W. Bush took 51% of the Popular Vote in 2004.

MSNBC Newsroom Booed Bush State of the Union

And I've got to say, my first night here at MSNBC was the President's
State of the Union address in 2003, and I was shocked because there
were actually people in the newsroom that were booing the president
actually from the beginning to the end.

http://newsbusters.org/node/14899?q=blogs/mark-finkelstein/2007/08/16/msnbc-newsroom-booed-bushs-state-union

Bottom LIne: Left Wingers Feeding Propaganda to Left Wingers.

Answer 1

There is a huge difference between an individual journalists personal political beliefs, and what the editors and corporations who run the media allow to be reported.

If you think that the media has a liberal bias then please explain how none of the major news organizations did any real reporting in the run up to the Iraq war. Why did the President and the administration get a free pass until the situation became chaotic? If the media had a liberal bias wouldn't they have been reporting all the faults with pre-war intelligence and insufficient troop levels prior to the invasion?

Answer 2

People who actually know stuff generally understand the current GOP is dominated by reactionaries that have an agenda that favors trans-national corporations, and 'oil only' energy policy and stooges for the 'christian right' because they compose a large voting block. As a rule educated people who have come from a working class background understand that what's good for the American wage-earner is what's best for the country. Journalists in particular understand these things because of all the professions, these people are trained to read everything and to compare and contrast. So, it's no wonder that people who actually delve into the details of a subject have come to understand just how far off reality the current GOP is and they don't vote for them.

Answer 3

You know, the problem is that so many liberals go into journalism that they do not really realize just how biased they are. They have a very Liberal point of view, their peers have the same Liberal point of view, their co-workers have the same point of view, their editors etc. Pretty much all they are ever exposed to is the Liberal point of view. It is to the point now that they do not even see their point of view from being Liberal anymore. They honestly think that 90% of America either agrees with them (the way most people agree the sun will rise tomorrow).

Conversely, whenever something happens that proves otherwise, they are at a complete loss to explain it. They all loved, Bill Clinton. After is second term expired they all assumed that most of America loved him too and would elect Al Gore as a way to keep it going.

Bill Clinton never got over 46% of the vote in either election and had it not been for Perot acting as a spoiler would not have won. Obviously, 90% of America did not love Bill Clinton. They just refused to believe it.

When Al Gore ran they, again convinced themselves he simply could not loose. That is why they were so eager to believe that there must have been some kind of voter fraud when he lost.

The election over, Gore conceded then he recinded his consession and filed suit with the Florida Supreme Court. Yet, to this day whenever Liberals speak about that election they still craft their argument to make it look like Bush ran to the Supreme Court. Bush only went to the Supreme Court after Gore went to court.

For many of you young people, you may not have even heard that before. For those who are novices about such things, elections are strictly the domain of the Legislative Branch. The Executive Branch has no say and the Judiciary has no say. All rules regarding the election must be decided on before the election and (for obvious reasons) cannot be changed after voting begins.

That is why when Gore balked about the election results in Florida, the Florida Governor who is Jeb Bush, did absolutely nothing. He is the Executive Branch and has no say in the matter. The Florida Supreme Court also has no say in the matter, yet being a very Liberal Court they heard the case and changed the rules regarding how votes would be recounted.

That was totally illegal and unethical. Bush had to appeal to the US Supreme Court to stop the illegal recounting and handling of the ballots. The US Supreme Court did not hand the election to Bush. What they did was sent a nasty gram to the Florida Supremes telling them what they already knew. They had no authority to authorize recounts in violation of the recount rules and if they persisted they would cause a Constitutional Crisis. The Florida Secretary of State then certified the election results as was her constitutional duty and ended all the nonsense.

When the news was reported by the Liberals in the media you got a completely different story. You heard about "butterfly ballots" that confused voters into voting for the wrong candidate. They did not make much of an issue, however, that the people who selected that style of ballot were all Democrats.

They picked up and repeated the story that thousands of angry voters called their Congressman to complain about the ballots. This story should have raised any reporters eyebrows. Why would voters who had a problem with ballots in their district call their Congressman and not the local election officials? Yet we are being led to believe that that is exactly what happened.

We heard of voters being confused about where to vote, of road work deliberately trying to surpress the vote all in Democratically dominated districts. Yet little mention of the fact that in Democratically dominated districts, the polls were being manned by Democrat Officials. Why would Democratic Officials deliberately confuse their own fellow Democrats.

The road work was legitimate work that had already been underway and the scheduling was contolled by Democratic Officials in the Public Works Department.

But the Liberal media views this through a Liberal filter. Everything they look at they view through this Liberal idology. That is why they report the way they report. It is because that is how they perceive things. They really believe that they are being fair and balanced. If the facts do not match their perspective then the facts must be wrong.

To answer your question, Liberals in the Liberal media will deny that they are biased.

.

Answer 4

I don't know that favoring Kerry was political bias so much as the media who had access to both candidates saw the truth. Kerry would have been a better president.

As to media bias, what do you say about FOX (and how many FOX channels are there?) or the many programs that span across the AM radio dial? Seems to me that there are many more conservative biased outlets than liberal!

And what about THIS medium (YA!)? You don't seem to be having any trouble voicing your opinion here.

Answer 5

almost immediately after the democrats took administration of congress, bush grow to be asked a touch maximum efficient question by making use of a "journalist" named jeff gannon. the question regarded like such an obvious plant ("how are you going to be waiting to paintings with the democrats while they look out of touch with certainty?" or some such nonsense.) that some in the click pool grew to grow to be curious. "who's that this guy" they puzzled? it grew to become out that he had no press credentials and grow to be in certainty a gay prostitute named jeff guckert. he grow to be this manner of risk-free practices risk that the secret provider declined to furnish him a suitable press bypass and he grow to be issued some thing from the white domicile press workplace reported as a "day bypass" because of this. it additionally grew to become out that this fellow gannon/guckert had visited the white domicile on many days while there have been no press purposes in any respect. has the main flow LIBERAL media lined this tale or its implications? a gay hooker who visited the white domicile on diverse events or perhaps asked the president a query for the time of a nationally televised press convention? how is that no longer a narrative the liberal media might like to demonstrate? have you ever even heard of republican senator david vitter? he grow to be a shopper of the late dc madam and it is been rumored that this upstanding fellow had a fetish for donning diapers for the time of his training with prostitutes. he's (no marvel) a form of "kinfolk values" kinds who makes each sane individual unwell with their hypocrisy. he continues to be in the senate and that i won't be able to bear in recommendations the final time any "liberal" media outlet reported his call. bias. what a shaggy dog tale.

Answer 6

Their personal opinions are one thing....journalism is another... a person writing an opinion article espouses his political beliefs...a repoter tells you that today in Washington such and such happens

Answer 7

No it just shows that they have a lot of sense and know what's going on.

Answer 8

Of course the media is biased. Watch your local news. Some reporters refer to law enforcement as police, others refer to them as cops. That definitely conveys the reporters opinion.

Answer 9

Fox is right wing slanted "journalsim". It is very biased.

Answer 10

It is liberal bias,,that's a fact,,,hey "was I wrong to turn off the Clinton news network "CNN",not that I can stomach that crap. let use not forget Rush,,AM-1240...chow freepress out