# Liberal Media / Conservative Media



## michaeledward (May 24, 2004)

Is there a media bias? Many people assume there is a 'Liberal Bias, to the news media. So, let's find out. 

Post 1 media personality, include his or her political point of view. Please try not to post a personality that has been posted by another. For the sake of this thread, let's assume that 'Media' is defined by Television (Broadcast), Television (Cable), Radio, Daily Newspapers, Periodical Publications. 

If the media personality is a local person, please indicate the media market that they serve.

Are you game?


----------



## michaeledward (May 24, 2004)

RUSH LIMBAUGH - Conservative Radio Talk Show Host


----------



## MisterMike (May 24, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Is there a media bias? Many people assume there is a 'Liberal Bias, to the news media. So, let's find out.
> 
> Post 1 media personality, include his or her political point of view. Please try not to post a personality that has been posted by another. For the sake of this thread, let's assume that 'Media' is defined by Television (Broadcast), Television (Cable), Radio, Daily Newspapers, Periodical Publications.
> 
> ...



Do you mean to find out whether there are more liberal vs. conservative media outlets in the U.S.?

Or are you trying to narrow it down to the individual reporters, commentators, Op/Ed writers, Editors, Correspondents, anchors, journalists, ... boy you have quite a task at hand.

I think most would agree that the slant is more toward the left. At least that is the view that reaches the most people. Quantitatively it maybe 50-50 for all we know, but money talks, and more of it is coming from more people from the left.

If the number one paper in the world (NYT) is openly liberal, that ought to give you a hint.

I could maybe count a few papers and channels on one hand that stand on the side of conservatives. I think the scale tilts the other way when it comes to talk radio though.


----------



## michaeledward (May 24, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I think most would agree that the slant is more toward the left.


I do not agree with this statement. I believe the voice of the right wing political point of view is far more pervasive than any left wing voices. Which is why I am asking folks to post the personalities, and the point-of-view.



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> If the number one paper in the world (NYT) is openly liberal


Do you mean the OpEd page of the New York Times? Or do you mean the journalistic articles themselves are somehow slanted toward the left? Please justify this statement.

Rush Limbaugh clearly identifies himself as a Conservative.


----------



## TonyM. (May 24, 2004)

This is a classic case of the boy that cried wolf. The media is controlled by big business. Does anyone know anyone in big business that is liberal? Please. The whole liberal media thing is just the media itself blowing smoke and sunshine up our rectums.


----------



## MisterMike (May 24, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I do not agree with this statement. I believe the voice of the right wing political point of view is far more pervasive than any left wing voices. Which is why I am asking folks to post the personalities, and the point-of-view.
> 
> 
> Do you mean the OpEd page of the New York Times? Or do you mean the journalistic articles themselves are somehow slanted toward the left? Please justify this statement.
> ...



Well, it was not a declaritive statement, but if people are going to list things only to have you say, naw, it's the other way around, well, what's the point?

I would say that if a big paper with the largest readership has a left-slant in it's OpEd page, the paper is to the left. 

I can only count 1 station that if I had to lump in the conservative group would - FOX. Where does that leave all the rest???

As for talk radio, what was it, that AirAmerica or whatever the Liberals openly admitted was their initiative to get back at all the conservative talk radio. So I count 1. 

But what has the most time in front of people. I'd say TV. What people refer to as "news." This to me is what gets out there more, and why we have a left slant overall in the media.

How again is the right wing political view more pervasive? The radio that nobody really listens to or is it FOX again?


----------



## michaeledward (May 24, 2004)

<chuckle>


Gee, I didn't think this would be that difficult. 

Thanks for playing guys.


----------



## MisterMike (May 24, 2004)

TonyM. said:
			
		

> This is a classic case of the boy that cried wolf. The media is controlled by big business. Does anyone know anyone in big business that is liberal? Please. The whole liberal media thing is just the media itself blowing smoke and sunshine up our rectums.



Yes, there are media giants who ARE big business, and I should hope they control themselves.

Being big business does not mean you are conservative. How else do Democrats get so much in contributions?


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 24, 2004)

Michael Savage: very conservative, and lunatic.

G. Gordon Liddy: right-wing, nutcase, talk-show host.

Hannity. Shows like, "Crossfire." The "McLaughlin Report." The "Washington Times." "The Orange County Register." "The Arizona Republic." Murdoch's newspapers, and FOX news. 

It's absurd to argue that, "the media," is leftist. The media is corporatist; some folks just don't like the news, want to reject aspects of reality, can't deal with the contradictions between what they wish were true and what is true. For them, it's never going to be enough: never "patriotic," enough, never strident enough, never conservative enough.

The problem is, actually, that a number of folks wouldn't recognize, "leftist," if it forced them into a work camp. Because of guys like Reagan (and after a lot  of self-inflicted wounds) the left wing of American politics has largely disappeared over the last twenty years. Some of you even think that Clinton was an extreme leftist, but the present Bush is centrist, which only shows the  narrowing of the political spectrum. 

Historically and culturally speaking, the argument about a leftist media makes no sense. It is, however, a useful tactic, for those who demand total agreement with their politics, their economics, their theology, out of everybody else. 

Yes, poor, poor, pitiful me, Rush and Michael scream into the mike daily. My country has been taken over by lesbians and atheists and college professors and Dan Rather and Walter Cronkheit (now THERE'S a commie!) and and and...THEM!! But I--I ALONE, MY LISTENERS!!!--am fighting back on behalf of decent people.

It's a scam, kids. It's just a scam. These clowns are getting richer off fear and anxiety and hatred.

But hey, keep watching the skies.


----------



## heretic888 (May 25, 2004)

Hrmmm....

My personal opinion is that the "bias" of the media depends on what particular outlets you are referring to.

Radio talk shows, late-night talk shows, and FOX News are without doubt biased toward conservatism. The Daily Show is a notable exception to this.

Many of the other major news networks tend to be more liberally-biased.

Of course, ultimately, I think they all biased towards sensationalism than anything else --- "if it bleeds, it leads". As one commentator put it, "there's a definate bias towards crap".

I will say, however, that guys like Bill O'Riley just really annoy me --- I actually watched his show once or twice. He actually charactertized himself as "helping lead America against the forces of darkness". He actually said THAT!!

Gawd, that kind of horsecrap pisses me off.  :shrug:


----------



## Cruentus (May 25, 2004)

I'd have to agree with heretic that I think the bias is towards sensationalism more then anything else. Whatever draws the biggest audience brings in ratings and recognition to the reporter who put it out.

However, entities with the money can afford to do the due diligence to get certian news stories out there, and to get their points of view heard. It should be no mystery that some major fortune 500 companies are Public Relation companies. So the view points that the media is drawing from tend to be in the interest of big business.

So, I think that the general news is more conservative for that and other reasons, although you can find "liberal" sources out there.

 :asian:


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 25, 2004)

I've lost a lot of respect for Glenn Beck these days for justifying everything Bush says or does; however, every once in a while he slips up and says something rational.
Lableing the media as anything but the media shows that people don't understand the term media. If anything its the reactionary media or the easily mislead media, but Liberal media is a vestage of the past. A sans tail for you evolutionists. :asian: 
Sean


----------



## Phoenix44 (May 25, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Being big business does not mean you are conservative. How else do Democrats get so much in contributions?


Right now Democrats are getting numerous SMALL contributions from people like me who can't afford the $2,000/plate dinners that the wealthy can manage. Last month, over 1,000 bake sales were held by 13,000 "little people" nationwide, including myself, to benefit MoveOn.org, an internet based organization encouraging ordinary citizens to get involved in the political process.  Although they contribute to members of any political party, MoveOn.org supports progressive causes, including unseating the current administration.

I believe "the media" have many biases, some of which have been mentioned already, but the idea that "the media" is overwhelmingly liberal is a myth--which is why Air America Radio has made such a splash.


----------



## Cobra (May 25, 2004)

CNN and MSNBC are very bias liberal news channels.

Fox News is a lot more conservative, but unlike CNN and MSNBC it isn't that bias at all. Mike Savage is great, but he can get out of hand sometimes.


----------



## Cobra (May 25, 2004)

Yesterday I watched Bush's speech on MSNBC, one second after the speech huge amounts of Bush bashing took place.


----------



## heretic888 (May 25, 2004)

> Fox News is a lot more conservative, but unlike CNN and MSNBC it isn't that bias at all.



*laughs* This is a joke, right??

I'm no fan of liberalism (or conservatism for that matter), but FOX is _disgustingly_ biased toward the Right Wing. They don't even attempt to hide it --- I can't count the number of "objective" reporters and commentators on that network that regard anything "French" (or non-American, really) as "wrong".

And, the fact the network supports the likes of Bill O'Riley says volumes.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 25, 2004)

Micheal Savage is not great, he is a vial pig! He tells Homosexuals that he hopes they get AIDS and die. He should if anything be imprisoned for "getting out of line sometimes" because there are members of the "Savage Nation" that will kill and destroy if called upon to do so. And he does.
Sean


----------



## Cobra (May 25, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Micheal Savage is not great, he is a vial pig! He tells Homosexuals that he hopes they get AIDS and die. He should if anything be imprisoned for "getting out of line sometimes" because there are members of the "Savage Nation" that will kill and destroy if called upon to do so. And he does.
> Sean


Savage has never said dirt about homosexuals. Opposing gay marriages doesn't count. I'm oppose to gay marriage, but have nothing against gays.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 25, 2004)

Actualy it was the reason he was fired from MSNBC; so, I'll pretend you didn't say that or you just don't know what your talking about... you decide. :asian: 
Sean


----------



## michaeledward (May 25, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Actualy it was the reason he was fired from MSNBC; so, I'll pretend you didn't say that or you just don't know what your talking about... you decide.


Thank you. <chuckle>  Well said.


----------



## MisterMike (May 25, 2004)

I am astonished I have not come across this guy on TV yet. I must admit my interest is peeked now.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 25, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I am astonished I have not come across this guy on TV yet. I must admit my interest is PIQUED now.


Try the AM radio. Or just look him up on the internet.... YOU are just going to love him.(no offense and sorry for the spelling correction I couldn't resist) LOL
Sean


----------



## MisterMike (May 25, 2004)

I will admit I come from a conservative base and out here we have a guy, Jay Severin, on the radio who adds a bit of flare to his show. But if Savage is out there like a Howard Stern I probably won't 'love' him. I do like Laura Ingraham though 

Ohyea, I meant 'peeked' anyways.


----------



## michaeledward (May 25, 2004)

I find it odd how much Jay Severin and I are in agreement on the current status of the US occupation in Iraq ... although, I would never recommend "nuking them" ... but other than that . . . 

Everything else Jay says, however, I think is hogwash. ... but again, and for the moment, Jay is a local personality, so I don't want to dwell on him too much.

Laura Ingraham has never seen a Bush policy she doesn't support. The level of respect she shows to the senior Massachusetts Senator speaks volumes. Even if I disagree vehimently with someone so prominent in the government, I do not speak so unkindly about them. And I don't think she is using the language she does for humor purposes.

As for Michael Savage, on radio ... he is just another of the rabid voices of extremism (on the right) ... on Television, he was an FCC fine waiting to happen ... which is why he is gone.


----------



## Cobra (May 26, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Actualy it was the reason he was fired from MSNBC; so, I'll pretend you didn't say that or you just don't know what your talking about... you decide. :asian:
> Sean


No, he got fired because someone called and purposely got Savage pissed off and Savage called the caller a sodomite. Wow, that is such a bad word. Come on. 

I think MSNBC was waiting for Savage to do something, even if it wasn't that bad at all because MSNBC because they wanted to a hardbound conservative off the air. Pretty unfair if you ask me.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 26, 2004)

Cobra said:
			
		

> No, he got fired because someone called and purposely got Savage pissed off and Savage called the caller a sodomite. Wow, that is such a bad word. Come on.
> 
> I think MSNBC was waiting for Savage to do something, even if it wasn't that bad at all because MSNBC because they wanted to a hardbound conservative off the air. Pretty unfair if you ask me.


So he called him a sodomite and he told him he hoped he got AIDS and died. Secondly if he can't control his temper as a "Proffessional" I guess he doesn't belong on the air, does he? I think that's pretty fair, don't you?
Sean


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 26, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I will admit I come from a conservative base and out here we have a guy, Jay Severin, on the radio who adds a bit of flare to his show. But if Savage is out there like a Howard Stern I probably won't 'love' him. I do like Laura Ingraham though
> 
> Ohyea, I meant 'peeked' anyways.


There is nothing Stern about Michael Savage &  How come you mean to mispell words? now I'M curious.


----------



## michaeledward (May 26, 2004)

Cobra said:
			
		

> No, he got fired because someone called and purposely got Savage pissed off and Savage called the caller a sodomite. Wow, that is such a bad word. Come on.
> 
> I think MSNBC was waiting for Savage to do something, even if it wasn't that bad at all because MSNBC because they wanted to a hardbound conservative off the air. Pretty unfair if you ask me.


A transcript can be found here:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2003-07-07-msnbc-fires-savage_x.htm

A couple of points:

Savage regularly uses the term 'sodomists' to refer to homosexuals. In this conversation, he seemed to guess the caller's sexual preference by the caller's speaking inflections.

When Savage refers to 'sausage', in the context, I don't think he was refering to a food.


----------



## MisterMike (May 26, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I find it odd how much Jay Severin and I are in agreement on the current status of the US occupation in Iraq ... although, I would never recommend "nuking them" ... but other than that . . .
> 
> Everything else Jay says, however, I think is hogwash. ... but again, and for the moment, Jay is a local personality, so I don't want to dwell on him too much.
> 
> ...



I don't think Laura was in support of opening the Mexican border, or letting the illegals receive permanent status here.

Who CAN respect the Sr. Massachusetts senator??? Maybe not humor, but these shows do require a bit of entertainment value otherwise no-one would listen.


----------



## michaeledward (May 26, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> If the number one paper in the world (NYT) is openly liberal, that ought to give you a hint.


If you are claiming that the New York Times is 'Openly Liberal', please review this article.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5066178/

The fact that the New York Times would publish articles that were in support of the US invasion of Iraq, *without* appriopriate editorial oversight and vetting, seems to disavow the claim.

A liberal paper would have used every opportunity to make statements against the planned invasion. A liberal paper would have featured more prominently the articles that countered claims used to support the invasion, when they were discovered.


----------



## michaeledward (May 26, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Who CAN respect the Sr. Massachusetts senator??? Maybe not humor, but these shows do require a bit of entertainment value otherwise no-one would listen.


The citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts seem to have enough respect for the senator to re-elect him seven times.

And, if the people of Massachusetts aren't good enough for you, how about this.



> The 2003 George Bush Award for Excellence in Public Service is presented to​*Edward M. Kennedy*
> _United States Senator
> and
> The 2003 Recipient of the George Bush Award for Excellence in Public Service _​




http://www.georgebushfoundation.org/bush/html/GeorgeBushAward/BioEdwardMKennedy.htm

Regards - Mike


----------



## loki09789 (May 26, 2004)

Media/information formats (television/radio/print/internet) are motivated by profit.  There may be a mission statement and a business philosophy along with a target demographic audience that they are tailoring to in the market, but in the end they are a private business organization working for profit. Their chosen product is information.  How they sell that product to that market will increase of decrease sales.

Since the "media" is a bunch of private/independent organizations it is impossible to label all of them as left, right, liberal or what ever.

In the end they are like any business. In an analogy that would compare Media industry to car sales, some will be the economy class/appeal to the masses type of used car/shlocky 'cheap' stuff (stereotypic used car salesman, screaming advertising dealership types)  and some will be the 'high style' sleek luxury class stuff (Beamers, Jaguars....).  From one end of the analagous extreme to the other there is a 'tone' and 'mood' that is emphasized that accomplishes:

1.  Providing the service/product that the business is producing.
2.  The 'air' or style that fits the business philosophy/mission and attracts a certain demographic.

No matter how noble or honorable intentions may be, some decisions in the commercial information industry will be for profit purposes.

I haven't even gone into the personal biases of the writers, editors, chief editors, owners.... that either consciously or unconsciously influence the slant of the information and the choice of ommisions/inclusive info.


----------



## michaeledward (May 26, 2004)

Paul, that is a fairly clear description of the process and industry. 

Yet we are somehow beseiged by claims of the 'liberal media'. I believe another posted said, "I think most would agree that the slant is more toward the left." 

In fact, I started this thread because someone said they read a review of an item, and based their opinion of the item on the review. And, I was reading a book that claimed the 'reviews' are more important to society than the 'things'.

Others claim, as you seem to be doing, that the only bias in the media is a 'profit bias'. 

Is that so? I'm curious. Because from my point of view, the right has a far larger voice in the media. The left is nowhere to be found on my radio dial. (Well, that's not true ... WTKK in Boston has a liberal talk show on Saturday  mornings from 6:00 AM - 9:00 AM - "Fighting for our rights!" - thankfully, I go fishing on Sunday mornings.).

Hmmm.


----------



## loki09789 (May 26, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Paul, that is a fairly clear description of the process and industry.
> 
> Yet we are somehow beseiged by claims of the 'liberal media'. I believe another posted said, "I think most would agree that the slant is more toward the left."
> 
> ...


I'd say that most of the accusations about Right, Left.... are motivated by personal disagreement with the presentation more than an accurate assessment of specific formats/companies.  If the "right" has a more powerful voice it is because it is more sensational sounding and stirs up the left.  The left reacts and gets angry, creates arguments vocally and in their heads then BUYS/WATCHES for what will happen next because they are incensed.....

People say that part of fulfillment is making a living at something you love.  That is what they are doing.


----------



## Tgace (May 26, 2004)

loki09789 said:
			
		

> I'd say that most of the accusations about Right, Left.... are motivated by personal disagreement with the presentation more than an accurate assessment of specific formats/companies. If the "right" has a more powerful voice it is because it is more sensational sounding and stirs up the left. The left reacts and gets angry, creates arguments vocally and in their heads then BUYS/WATCHES for what will happen next because they are incensed.....
> 
> People say that part of fulfillment is making a living at something you love. That is what they are doing.


Kinda sounds like the reasons I post here sometimes.


----------



## heretic888 (May 26, 2004)

Could it possibly be that the reason there are accusations of a "liberal media" is that more "liberals" tend to watch/read media outlets than "conservatives" (after all, if the media really is so "left-winged", why would you bother? Or, as our eminent *chuckles* president put it, "Eh, opinions.")??

After all, yah gotta satisfy your target audience, neh?


----------



## MisterMike (May 26, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts seem to have enough respect for the senator to re-elect him seven times.
> 
> And, if the people of Massachusetts aren't good enough for you, how about this.
> 
> ...



None of it is enough for me. You could draw a line down the middle of Massachusetts and show how Boston and the surrounding areas are the brick while the rest of the state tries to swim. It's the black hole where Kennedy hails from that is sucking the taxes from the rest of the state. Big Dig, gargantuan deficits, from a state 1/10th the size of Texas. Welfare and social services are so easy to get it draws people from out of state, not to mention the homosexuals now who will soon be wanting state benefits. Nevermind the schools are the worst in the country. Glad to be leaving soon...


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 26, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> None of it is enough for me. You could draw a line down the middle of Massachusetts and show how Boston and the surrounding areas are the brick while the rest of the state tries to swim. It's the black hole where Kennedy hails from that is sucking the taxes from the rest of the state. Big Dig, gargantuan deficits, from a state 1/10th the size of Texas. Welfare and social services are so easy to get it draws people from out of state, not to mention the homosexuals now who will soon be wanting state benefits. Nevermind the schools are the worst in the country. Glad to be leaving soon...


Your state is definantly a testing groung for Gay Marriage. The bennefit issues has always been the reason I opposed gay Marriage. I think it would cripple the military. Anyways are you just moving across the border or are you moving to a completly different area of the country?
Sean


----------



## michaeledward (May 26, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> None of it is enough for me. You could draw a line down the middle of Massachusetts and show how Boston and the surrounding areas are the brick while the rest of the state tries to swim. It's the black hole where Kennedy hails from that is sucking the taxes from the rest of the state. Big Dig, gargantuan deficits, from a state 1/10th the size of Texas. Welfare and social services are so easy to get it draws people from out of state, not to mention the homosexuals now who will soon be wanting state benefits. Nevermind the schools are the worst in the country. Glad to be leaving soon...


While Kennedy did play a part in the Big Dig ... to blame a Senator for state deficits, social services and welfare is a bit disengenous, isn't it? 

I'm sure you understand civics enough to realize that a Senator serves the citizens of the state at the federal government level. The state services you mention are controlled by your local representatives on Beacon Hill, and the State Governor.


----------



## MisterMike (May 26, 2004)

Touch'O'Death said:
			
		

> Your state is definantly a testing groung for Gay Marriage. The bennefit issues has always been the reason I opposed gay Marriage. I think it would cripple the military. Anyways are you just moving across the border or are you moving to a completly different area of the country?
> Sean



I'm hopping over the line to NH. I am also intersted in the Libertarian Free State Project. www.freestateproject.org


----------



## MisterMike (May 26, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> While Kennedy did play a part in the Big Dig ... to blame a Senator for state deficits, social services and welfare is a bit disengenous, isn't it?
> 
> I'm sure you understand civics enough to realize that a Senator serves the citizens of the state at the federal government level. The state services you mention are controlled by your local representatives on Beacon Hill, and the State Governor.



Nobody's blaming him for it all. But he hails from the hub of it all.

So he's not a big tax hiker, tax spender, socialist, anti-gun thug nor does he get voted for by the same people who *do* want more state programs and welfare?

I'm sure you understand English enough so your probably just twisting words.


----------



## Cruentus (May 26, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I'm hopping over the line to NH. I am also intersted in the Libertarian Free State Project. www.freestateproject.org



Interesting. keep us updated on that!


----------



## michaeledward (May 26, 2004)

Man, I just love these lessons. 



			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> Nobody's blaming him for it all. But he hails from the hub of it all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 As near as I can see ... all of those are *your *words. And it does appear to me, that you are indeed blaming him for it all. That may not be what you meant, but it is what you said.  Although, you do point out the logical fallacy that just because Senator Kennedy is from a location, he is not the cause of the actions that take place in that location.

Further, even if Senator Kennedy is a, . . .  umm, how did you put it . . . 


			
				MisterMike said:
			
		

> big tax hiker, tax spender, socialist, anti-gun thug


. . . the programs you are railling against, and leaving the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to get away from, are not in place because of Senator Kennedy. 

A Senator serves the citizens of a state in Washington DC. The Services that  you describe as contributing reasons for your departure from the Commonwealth are State services, and not reflective of the work of the Senator.

And, speaking of gargantuan deficits, I am not even going to touch President Bush's, and the Republican controlled congress's budgets from the past 3 years.


----------



## MisterMike (May 26, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Man, I just love these lessons.
> 
> 
> As near as I can see ... all of those are *your *words. And it does appear to me, that you are indeed blaming him for it all. That may not be what you meant, but it is what you said.  Although, you do point out the logical fallacy that just because Senator Kennedy is from a location, he is not the cause of the actions that take place in that location.
> ...



You can read all that and STILL not get the point that I only associated Kennedy with Boston. The SAME people who are creating/using/voting for these failing wasteful programs are the SAME people who vote for Kennedy, who presses for the same types of legislation in D.C.

Nooooowhere did I BLAME him but I certainly do not respect him.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 26, 2004)

How one becomes an, "anti-gun thug," is a bit beyond me.

Nevertheless, I take such posts as these as signs of the continuing decline of civility. I despise Tom de Lay's politics and actions, but he remains, "Congessman DeLay," a leading member of our legislature--and, if you'll note, I do not pass loud, aggressive public judgment on his character.

It is not a good sign, socially speaking, that the Michael Savages of the world feel free to say, and write, that their fellow Americans are traitors and pigs and whatever else their febrile little minds come up with.

Certainly, there is a long, funny, and  honorable tradition of citizens making rude fun of their leaders. Good for them. 

However, I take offense at those who feel free to publicly, loudly, attack people who--whatever one's reservations about their private life--insult people who have spent their lives in public service, and who have lost two brothers to that service.

I take offense at Savage, Rush and the others who have no reservations whatsoever about insulting people like Bob Kerrey (a CMH holder) or John McCain (a pretty heroic POW, in my book, and by the way, why exactly weren't the likes of our esteemed Sec'y of Defense in the least abashed about telling a survivor of prison camps and torture that, perish forbid, we weren't doing anything wrong in Iraq prisons and anyway we'd suspended the Geneva Conventions as we saw fit?) or George McGovern (combat bomber pilot, WWII) or all the rest of them,  who fought for their country and just so happen to hold different views. 

I even take offense at people who insult as loudly as they  can the Bill Clintons of the world, who (whatever one's reservations about their private  lives) grew up with nothing, busted their *** to get their education, and gave up a lot for public service. 

Especially when they then turn around and complain that the problem with this country is our decaying ethics.


----------



## MisterMike (May 26, 2004)

The Clinton's went in to service to give up a lot??..I think they went in to get a lot.


----------



## MisterMike (May 26, 2004)

> How one becomes an, "anti-gun thug," is a bit beyond me.



It's easy. They use guns to back up taking your guns.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 26, 2004)

Gee, musta missed the Kennedys riding in to take guns from the cold dead hands of decent Amurricans. 

And gee, guess ya didn't want to tangle with the real point of that post, didja?


----------



## michaeledward (May 26, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And gee, guess ya didn't want to tangle with the real point of that post, didja?


Gee, thanks for noticin'.


----------



## MisterMike (May 26, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And gee, guess ya didn't want to tangle with the real point of that post, didja?



Gee - and the both of you are such models for the rest of us.

Hey is there something wrong with spelling Americans, or are you too ashamed to be one?


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 26, 2004)

As long as we are inventing words...


----------



## Cobra (May 27, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Gee - and the both of you are such models for the rest of us.
> 
> Hey is there something wrong with spelling Americans, or are you too ashamed to be one?


I don't mean to disrespect rmcorobertson in any way, I barely know him. But it seems to me on observing his posts, he seems very liberal wich isn't bad at all. But it seems to me that almost very extreme liberal hates being American. Now I'm not assuming rmc hates America and isn't proud to be one, I just wanted to point that out.

If you have also noticed, liberal news channels and radio always seem to put America down all the time. So already when you are listening to those stations or news channels, you get the bias Anti-American crap already. Just wanted to point that out too.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 27, 2004)

Good to see the point confirmed: "conservatism," has sunk so low, intellectually and morally speaking, that dissent can only be labelled un-Amerikan.

Barry Goldwater would be ashamed of such discussion. But then, as I've come to realize, he was the real thing.

In brief, can't you use commas properly? Or are you too ashamed of being a comma to use one?

Still waiting to see addressed the point about shameful attacks on Americans who have given their country a great deal, even if we don't like their politics. It's people like that who called Robert Oppenheimer a traitor.

But keep going. Nothing could possibly illustrate the bankruptcy of "conservative," claims as well.


----------



## michaeledward (May 27, 2004)

Cobra said:
			
		

> I don't mean to disrespect rmcorobertson in any way, I barely know him. But it seems to me on observing his posts, he seems very liberal wich isn't bad at all. But it seems to me that almost very extreme liberal hates being American. Now I'm not assuming rmc hates America and isn't proud to be one, I just wanted to point that out.
> 
> If you have also noticed, liberal news channels and radio always seem to put America down all the time. So already when you are listening to those stations or news channels, you get the bias Anti-American crap already. Just wanted to point that out too.


Who are the 'very extreme liberal' persons you are referring to? 
Who are the 'liberal news channels and radio you are referring to?

I am a very extreme liberal (self-proclaimed). Why do you assume I hate being American? What actions have I taken, or statements I have made that allow you to make such a statement? 

And please help me understand what channels and stations I should tune into so that I can see and listen to the 'correct' American way of doing things.


----------



## michaeledward (May 27, 2004)

Okay ... Here's the tally so far. Personalities first.

Rush Limbaugh - Conservative
Michael Savage - Conservative
G Gordon Liddy - Conservative
Sean Hannity - Conservative
Bill O'Reilly - Conservative
Glenn Beck - Conservative
Laura Ingraham - Conservative
Howard Stern - Liberal
Media Outlets

New York Times - Liberal
New York Times - Contested Liberal Status
FOX - Conservative
Air America - Liberal
CNN - Liberal
MSNBC - Liberal
I'm not sure what this claimant means

Major News Networks - Liberal
And, for good measure, one local personality

* Jay Severin - Conservative (Local)
Where are the strong voices of liberalism that dominate the media? Who on the left speaks with so clear an strong a voice as those listed here on the right?

By the way ... I don't think any of the personalities listed are strong conservatives. Where is George Will, William Buckley, Michael Kinsley, Cal Thomas ... and the like? Certainly, they are out doing battle with the liberal behemoths such as, Elenor Clift, Anna Quindlen and Molly Ivins.

Again, thanks for playing all.


----------



## Phoenix44 (May 27, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> By the way ... I don't think any of the personalities listed are strong conservatives.


You're kidding, right?  Limbaugh?  Hannity?

BTW, I don't see CNN, MSNBC or The NY Times as "Liberal."  Air America Radio is liberal.


----------



## michaeledward (May 27, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> You're kidding, right? Limbaugh? Hannity?
> 
> BTW, I don't see CNN, MSNBC or The NY Times as "Liberal." Air America Radio is liberal.


No, I am not kidding. I do not think that Limbaugh and Hannity can stand on the same conservative ground as George Will. While Limbaugh and Hannity may hold similar points of view as Mr. Will, they are not nearly so articulate in voicing those points of view, nor are they as persuasive. Some of that may be because they are primarily known in television and radio, which can not be as coherent has their print colleagues. Arguing for a particular point of view for 60 minutes on radio (Minus 12 minutes of commercials) allows for some pretty incoherent ramblings. Whereas putting your thoughts into a 1200 word column forces a measure of clarity of thought.

By the way, I agree that CNN, MSNBC & the New York Times are not what I would call liberal either. However, some in this thread made that case.

Mike


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 27, 2004)

Cobra said:
			
		

> I don't mean to disrespect rmcorobertson in any way, I barely know him. But it seems to me on observing his posts, he seems very liberal wich isn't bad at all. But it seems to me that almost very extreme liberal hates being American. Now I'm not assuming rmc hates America and isn't proud to be one, I just wanted to point that out.
> 
> If you have also noticed, liberal news channels and radio always seem to put America down all the time. So already when you are listening to those stations or news channels, you get the bias Anti-American crap already. Just wanted to point that out too.


Cobra,
Without yet reading Roberts response, which I'm sure will be interesting, let me tell you that you have been told liberals hate america by those politicaly opposed to their beliefs. Try forming your own opinions for once, or at least point out what is and what is not american so we can tear your petty argument to shreds.
Thank you,
Sean


----------



## michaeledward (May 27, 2004)

Hey, I found some evidence that the 'Liberal' National Public Radio ... may not be so Liberal after all ... 




			
				Newsday May 25 said:
			
		

> _Watchdog Group Report
> by Peter Goodman_
> _Despite a perception that National Public Radio is politically liberal, the majority of its sources are actually Republicans and conservatives, according to a survey released today by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, a left-leaning media watchdog._
> 
> ...


----------



## MisterMike (May 27, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Hey, I found some evidence that the 'Liberal' National Public Radio ... may not be so Liberal after all ...



Jsut because the sources were Republicans, does not mean that the stories did not have a left-of-center slant. An interview with Don Rumsfeld does not make a newspaper right-of-center.


----------



## michaeledward (May 27, 2004)

True. But how many times has let's say, Fox News given time to, oh let's say, Senator Kennedy, Senator Clinton, or General Zinni? Or, how many Republicans do they include, as compared to how many Democrats?

Things that make you go "hmmm".


----------



## Tgace (May 27, 2004)

Dont really have a strong stance on this topic, but I remember the big to do over this guys book...

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Zempel20031211.shtml
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Zempel20031215.shtml
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GuestColumns/Zempel20031222.shtml


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 27, 2004)

Curiously, the "Times," today ran a big mea culpa about their having accepted with too little question the Administration's stories about WMDs in Iraq. Kinda screws the whole notion of simple liberal, don't it?

Of course, the real issue here is that some simply don't like what's being said and shown, and will go to any rhetorical lengths (and some other lengths, too) to attack. Similarly, Rumsfield has been claiming that the real problem with torturing prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere is that some SOB took pictures, and squealed.

Let me try and explain this. In a democracy, there are many, many different viewpoints--one term for this is, "the marketplace of ideas," which just incidentally helps illustrate the ties between democracy and capitalism. But these many, many ideas are supposed to compete for credence. 

Similarly, there are supposed to be many voices in a democracy; "truth," comes out of the chorus, not out of some group of boneheads telling everybody the right way to think. In a democracy, it is considered healthy to have lots of dissent. 

See, if you do not have many voices you do not have an honest society. More than that, "truth," cannot be generated out of the give and take of discussion in all its forms. So when the government closes down the press, or when pressure groups demand that the press agrees with the government, democracy is damaged. 

By the way too, I see that the issue of these cheerful, mean-spirited personal attacks on fellow Americans continues to get ignored: must still be easier to hurl insults than to discuss issues.


----------



## Cobra (May 28, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Good to see the point confirmed: "conservatism," has sunk so low, intellectually and morally speaking, that dissent can only be labelled un-Amerikan.
> 
> Barry Goldwater would be ashamed of such discussion. But then, as I've come to realize, he was the real thing.
> 
> ...


Hey, calm down there. I am not accusing you of not being proud to be American. I just wanted to point out that many liberal sources do act very un-american. It's not rocket science, you don't even have to observe carefuly to see that. CNN for example says so much crap like more than five times an hour like "Our country is so horrible to other countries making sweatshops and  goin into other peoples buisness. And by the way you spelled America it seemed like you put down America on purpose. 

Why care how I use commas?   Wahaha, I'm not going to waist my time looking whether I have perfect grammer. I type fast, and you get what I post. And if you don't atleast get the main idea, something is very wrong with you. Or maybe it's with me, who knows. And that as they say is that.


----------



## Cobra (May 28, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> You're kidding, right? Limbaugh? Hannity?
> 
> BTW, I don't see CNN, MSNBC or The NY Times as "Liberal." Air America Radio is liberal.


Are you kidding me about CNN and MSNBC?


----------



## michaeledward (May 28, 2004)

Cobra, it appears you don't recall what you say from one post to the next....
Of course, by employeeing a double negative, you are accusing someone of not being proud to be an American; but that is just someone looking for perfect grammer.



			
				Cobra said:
			
		

> Hey, calm down there. I am not accusing you of not being proud to be American.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And, I am curious on which CNN news report, or show do they make the claims you list above? I would really like to see that transcript. 

Cobra, I don't want to assume you are full of crap ... but, as your conservative talk show hosts often say "Words Mean Things".

Come on .. put up or ......


Mike


----------



## loki09789 (May 28, 2004)

Standard media fall back when under criticism is that the reader is confusing his/her inferrance with the author's implications....

I think a lot of this "liberal"/"conservative" media is really about how people read into reports/stories than how they read them.  There is an obvious pattern that can be observed in some news organizations, but others aren't as clear.

A basic explanation of human interaction I got in school broke it down like this:

70% of human communication is non verbal - that means that we are more sensitive/adept at reading/sending non verbal ques than we are at articulating or understanding verbal/written forms of communication.  This can/and very often does lead to some powerful misinterpretations.

There are three components and two layers of communication:

messenger, message and reciever make up the components.  If all three of these components are not as open, clear and precise as possible confusion will occur.

the two layers are informational and emotional.  People generally respond first to what they percieve on the emotional level which will heavily influence how they interpret the informational level.

After all the class hours of teaching skills this is the basic stuff that I always come back to - and some of it came from MP training!

Looking at the stuff above and considering how the media either extremely or subtlely sends 'information messages' that are dripping with 'emotional messages' (headlines, selected quotes, slanted word choice...) it is no wonder folks get riled up.

I have chosen to get my degree in what is now called English Language Arts Education (we all just took English ), and it is interesting to see how easily people are manipulated (and be manipulated myself) by those who have made that 30% of human interaction their tool to wield for good or ill.

Our only chance to deal with the 'evil' media whether left or right is to be critical thinkers and articulate communicators.  That doesn't have to mean we all speak/read like PhD's just be clear in thought, word and deed and everything will be more clear.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 28, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> As for Michael Savage, on radio ... he is just another of the rabid voices of extremism (on the right) ... on Television, he was an FCC fine waiting to happen ... which is why he is gone.



Take a look at Michael Savages book "Savage Nation".  Its a neo version of "Mein Kampf".


----------



## Makalakumu (May 28, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I'm hopping over the line to NH. I am also intersted in the Libertarian Free State Project. www.freestateproject.org



This is one of the most interesting social experiments of our time.  I hope it gets off the ground because it would give the American people a true comparison of life with big government and life with small government.  No more lies and hypocrisy like one gets from the Republicans.  No more schizphrenic blending of Libertarianists and the Religious Right.  No more vieled fascism...if you guys can support this project, I would recommend it.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 28, 2004)

Cobra said:
			
		

> Hey, calm down there. I am not accusing you of not being proud to be American. I just wanted to point out that many liberal sources do act very un-american. It's not rocket science, you don't even have to observe carefuly to see that. CNN for example says so much crap like more than five times an hour like "Our country is so horrible to other countries making sweatshops and  goin into other peoples buisness. And by the way you spelled America it seemed like you put down America on purpose.
> 
> Why care how I use commas?   Wahaha, I'm not going to waist my time looking whether I have perfect grammer. I type fast, and you get what I post. And if you don't atleast get the main idea, something is very wrong with you. Or maybe it's with me, who knows. And that as they say is that.


Examples, examples!????????? And just for the record he was making fun of right wingers not intentionaly mispelling America as a hatred for America. You either already knew that and were making a false accusation or you really came to that conclusion. (I know Mr. Mike was just lashing back, but what about you?)
Sean


----------



## Makalakumu (May 28, 2004)

This thread has been very interesting to read.  I am glad I took the time to wade through the posts.  I have to agree with Robert, though.  The media is not liberal or conservative.  It's corporatist.  It's capitolist.  This explains so many things including the sensationalism.  The media _sells _ information.  

Here is a curveball...the crieds from the left or the right of bias usually increase and decrease proportionally with those who are in office, in my opinion.  If this is the case, just how much influence does the _government _ have on the media?


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 28, 2004)

Some folks really need to learn something--actually, anything--about their country and its history. It wouldn't hurt none to learn a little about democracy, neither.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 16, 2004)

> I think most would agree that the slant is more toward the left


I completely disagree.  During the majority of the coverage I've seen of the Bush "theft" of the Presidency (depending on your view and your opinion of the Supreme Court ruling), through September 11, to coverage in Iraq, it seems like now more than ever (as far as I can remember) it is not even allowed that newscasters or commentators (particularly on TV, where most folks seem to get their news) to question the war, question the President, and so forth.  For example, I remember distinctly reporters stating that they would not question the Supreme Court ruling because it would "undermine the President Bush's" authority.  Well, of course!

In terms of airtime, I believe conservative talk shows on the radio take up a much larger chunk of time, but I will have to check the statistics on that to give a concrete example.  

I think the "liberal media" argument is, frankly, tired, aside from being presently not the case.

And Americans seem to have forgotten that you can love this country (as I do), and still question what certain individuals do in our government.  BECAUSE I love my country, I shudder at certain policies.  BECAUSE I support the military and have friends and family in the armed forces, I don't want our government seeking out military engagements or wars that are not necessary.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 16, 2004)

The "liberal" media is a myth.  That's the reason for all the hoopla surrounding Air America Radio.  It's the ONLY liberal radio network.

Last week, most newspapers featured a horse race on the front page, while the investigation of Halliburton, including the possible involvement of Vice President Cheney, was tucked away in the middle somewhere.


----------



## MisterMike (Jun 16, 2004)

Flip through the morning shows between 7 and 9 and tell me what you think.

Katie Couric and Matt Lauer come to my mind - and not from the side of Republicans, who we generally associate with Conservatives.

Liberal/Conservative may not be the most accurate depiction...I think the media is simply politicized(Dem/Repub). The liberal/conservative is more a secondary comparison as Democrats are usually associated with liberal and Republican with conservative.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 17, 2004)

> I have to agree with Robert, though. The media is not liberal or conservative. It's corporatist. It's capitolist. This explains so many things including the sensationalism. The media _sells _information.


 I agree that the media sells.  I think one of the problems we are facing now is that a few large corporations - with some very strong political ties - own most of the media sources we get our news from.  They are both selling information as a product, in a way, but can control the kinds of information or the _slant_ on the news that is given out.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 17, 2004)

Perfect example:

Yesterday, a non-partisan group of 27 career diplomats and military commanders (Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change) held a press conference urging voters to oust the Bush Administration in November.  They stated:

"The Bush Administration...is not able to rise to the responsibilities of world leadership in either style or substance. It is time for a change."  And they cited reasons.

The press conference was covered by news services all over the world--but the New York Times didn't have a single sentence.  Liberal media?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 20, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Perfect example:
> 
> Yesterday, a non-partisan group of 27 career diplomats and military commanders (Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change) held a press conference urging voters to oust the Bush Administration in November.  They stated:
> 
> ...




A very good point here.  If the New York Times was liberal, it would have jumped at the opportunity to showcase a bunch of conservatives "coming out" against Bush.

William Kristol, a conservative writer who was chief of staff (and probably the brains for) Dan Quayle, put it simply.  He said that blaming the media was the Right's way of denying conservative failures.  When something goes wrong for the Right, they blame the "liberal" media.

This is almost a knee-jerk reaction on the part of conservatives.  Anytime anything unflattering about a conservative or conservative cause comes to light, one maligns the press for "undue attention".  I have a friend (and yes, I have conservative friends) who did this as a matter of course with the Abu Ghraib scandal.  This was the story of the year, with fifteen year old boys being raped by American translators and seventy year old women being ridden with bridals and called "donkeys"--horrific history in the making--and he said he couldn't believe how the media jumped all over it.  How could they NOT jump all over it?

One has to understand how incredibly competitive journalists are.  They'd rather scoop the competition on a story, beat them to the punch, than have to bother with focusing on any particular political slant.  They might leave it to the Op-Ed folks, Hannity and Colmes, Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough and Dan Abrams to talk about the political merits of any issue...but for the reporter on the street, rule one is GET THE STORY.  Rule two:  IF IT BLEEDS, IT LEADS.  It is not at all surprising that the prison abuse story got so much attention.  It CALLED FOR ATTENTION.  And it sold papers.

One wonders if the press is so "liberal" why they've so lionized Reagan as of late.  

Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 21, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I'm hopping over the line to NH. I am also intersted in the Libertarian Free State Project. www.freestateproject.org


For those interested, it seems that the good people of Grafton, NH are not too interested in the 'Free Town Project' ... which came as a surprise to the members of the Free State Project.

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1967764

Mike


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 22, 2004)

I think the media is getting lazier and lazier.  There used to be investigative journalism.  Now, just take a look at the major newspapers.  How many of the articles are AP newswire, or even quotations from OTHER newspapers?  And did you ever call a newsroom?  I did.  You'd be amazed at how incredibly ignorant these people are about what's going on in the world.

It's shocking.  No wonder the Bush administration can put out "Video Press Releases," basically fabricated propaganda using actors calling themselves journalists, and have them picked up by the major TV stations and presented as "news." Sure, it's easier than investigating. No, I'm not making this up--the DHHS recently sent out such videos re: Medicare. This practice was investigated, and found to be ILLEGAL, because it was not identified as DHHS propaganda when presented to the public.  The finding was that the DHHS owed the Treasury--ie the taxpayer--the money used to produce these videos.  (Of course, DHHS does not intend to pay us back)

Hey, I can subscribe to AP, too.  I don't need the New York Times to print it out for me, and pretend to be a newspaper.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 22, 2004)

"The media," is not getting lazier. They are getting bought up, consolidated, corporatized, by conglomerates that have no vested interest whatsoever in getting the news or reporting information: they have a vested interest in turning a profit. 

Some wire services have been run out of business; some have been bought out. Newsrooms have lost their ability to research and report, because that costs money. And, the real profit centers are in entertainment: CBS news, if I recall correctly, is in CBS' entertainment division.

To ice it, the personal interests of reporters increasingly revolve around making their careers--but why's anybody surprised? This is how capitalism works.

Then too, when a real reporter, like Seymour Hersh, appears, then everybody and their dimwit uncle starts attacking him as a liar and traitor. Must be fun.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 22, 2004)

True.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 22, 2004)

> CBS news, if I recall correctly, is in CBS' entertainment division.


You are kidding me!  (Although I know you're not.) 

Sad, sad sad.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 22, 2004)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> You are kidding me!  (Although I know you're not.)
> 
> Sad, sad sad.




Well, there is the big business aspect...but there is some hubris on the part of the old timers that has slowed many of them down.  Name some of the old great interviewers...who still shoots from the hip during interviews?  Mike Wallace sure doesn't.  He lost his edge.  Morley Safer?  I think so.  Mike Krall?  Yes.  Tim Matthews?  Oh, hell, yes.  Deb Norville?  No.  Paula Zahn...sorta.  Bill O'Reilly...shouts 'em down.

Some of those kids at the NY Times are trying to out do the old great ones...and are having to fabricate stuff to do it.

Maybe its a lost art, investigative journalism.  The art of the interview sure is gone.  People have forgotten the "follow up question."

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jun 23, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> People have forgotten the "follow up question."


When you have "press conferences" with pre-selected questions, questioners, AND answers, the "follow up question" no longer exists.


----------



## TonyM. (Jun 23, 2004)

The freestate project is probably the work of a couple of losers I know from grafton. Loser=Can't hold a job, can't maintain their own company, can't stay married, can't get custody of their kids, can't get reelected to the legislature.
No wonder the people of Grafton (all couple of hundred of them) aren't interested. They already have had to suffer through the reign of a police chief that sold drugs and stole cars. I think having a bunch of spin dry twelve step rejects move to their little town would probably push them over the edge. Transient Dartmouth and CRREL peeps are almost taking over as it is.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 25, 2004)

*Stuff to hand people when they talk about the "liberal media" and blame it for all our ills.

Here are links to studies regarding the media and bias:*

<http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html>

<http://www.fair.org/press-releases/power-sources-release.html>


*Two just lovely quotes from conservatives regarding the issue:*

 "I admit it:  the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole
 thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative
 failures."

             --William Kristol, conservative editor of the Weekly Standard
and former chief of staff to Vice President Dan Quayle.

 "The truth is, I've gotten fairer, more comprehensive coverage of my ideas
than I ever imagined I would receive.  I've gotten balanced coverage and
broad coverage--all we could have asked.  For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that."

           --Pat Buchanen, during his 1996 run for the Presidency.


*And some anecdotal information gleaned from several sources, with some of my own observations:*



These are the top radio newscasters and the numbers of listeners that tune to their shows every week:

 Paul Harvey.  23 million listeners.
 Rush Limbaugh.  14.5 million listeners.
 Sean Hannity.  10.5 million listeners.
 Dr. Laura. 8 million plus listeners.
 Michael Savage. 6 million plus listeners.

     All the above are conservatives.

 The two top syndicated columnists.

 Cal Thomas.  537 newspapers.
 George Will 430 newspapers*

     Both are highly conservative.

 Best selling authors of political commentary and some of their books:

 Ann Coulter-Treason, Slander
 Robert Bork-Slouching Towards Gomorrah
 Sean Hannity-Deliver Us From Evil, Let Freedom Ring
 Bill Bennett-The Book of Virtues
 Bill O'Reilly-No Spin Zone
 Barbara Olson-The Final Days
 Peggy Noonan-When Character Was King
 Bernard Goldberg-Bias
 Pat Buchanen-Death of The West

     All are conservative.

A short (very short) list of conservative authors/pundits you might recognize:

Bill Buckley, Matt Drudge, Matt Labash, Tucker Carlson, David Frum, Jonah Goldberg, Victor David Hansen, Oliver North, Bob Novak, Michelle Macklin, David Limbaugh...to name a few.

Other "talking heads" that lean to the right:  MSNBC's Joe Scarborough, Don Imus, and Dan Abrams.  All are unabashedly conservative.

The New York Post, Washington Times and Wall Street Journal are considered conservative.

The "liberal" Washington Post's editorial slant drifted to the right under the helm of Meg Greenfield and later even farther to the right under her successor Fred Hiatt, according to Eric Altman in "What Liberal Media?"

The supposedly "liberal" Washington Post was the first to question the relationship between the Rose Law firm (that employed Hillary Clinton) and the State of Arkansas, whose governor was Bill Clinton.  As indicated above, the Post is generally considered to be a notch or two right of center editorially.

The paper breaking the Whitewater scandal:  The purportedly "liberal"  New York Times.

 The "liberal" network CBS is owned by Westinghouse, and NBC is owned by General Eliectric.  Both Westinghouse and GE are major government arms contracters.  ABC is owned by Disney.  CNN is owned by Time/Warner.  Note none of these companies are known for their bleeding heart stances on social issues.  Big business is generally viewed as antagonistic to much of the liberal agenda.

Until recently, the "liberal" think tank, The Brookings Institution, was run by Michael Arnacost, a Republican member of Reagan's State Department who served as ambassador to Japan under George H.W. Bush.   The top ten think tanks in Washington are conservative.  One has to get to about the twelfth one down the list before finding one where a Republican would find himself uncomfortable were he/she to work there.

Writer Timothy Noah reports that because of the perception that they had a liberal bias, many reporters overcompensated in 2000 by portraying Al Gore as an habitual liar and giving George W. Bush favorable coverage, even though they ended up voting for Gore themselves.  Many Gore supporters feel Gore was "gored" by the press.  There is strong evidence to indicate this feeling was justified.

Bernard Goldberg, after publishing his book "Bias" about media bias towards the left, said on Fox News "I would say ninety percent of what I've heard and read about the book has been positive"  This would make it sound as if the biased liberals in the media reviewing his book liked it...all but ten percent, anyway.

Conservatives get mention in the press five times as often as liberals. Jesse Helms got more press than Barney Frank, and the Heritage Foundation is mentioned five times as much as Americans for Democratic Action.  One would think a liberal press would want the Heritage Foundation and Jesse Helms to sink into obscurity rather than getting time on the air and column inches in print.  Apparently not.




*Conservative columnists outreach liberal colunmists of a ration of 3-1 according to author Arthur E. Rowse.  Editor and Publisher magazine found that the number of Editors endorsing Bush over Gore in 2000 was 2-1.

Publisher's voted for Bush in a 3-1 ratio.  These ratios reflect the actual votes cast for Bush by editors and publishers of the two hundred or so that were polled.


Regards, 


Steve


----------

