[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Zeb:
We will continue to “agree to disagree” on “MSM Bias”…and your last post helped solidify it for me…
Mufasa
P.S. I look forward to having my mind changed with the next General Election![/quote]
The next general election will most assuredly NOT change your mind. Unless we literally strain to see otherwise, we see what we want to see.
The following facts mean nothing to you as you want to skip down your merry lane thinking that everything is fair and there is ZERO bais. But I’m posting them anyway for others who may want the truth and actually be open to it:
81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976.
In the Democratic landslide of 1964, 94 percent of the press surveyed voted for President Lyndon Johnson (D) over Senator Barry Goldwater (R).
In 1968, 86 percent of the press surveyed voted for Democrat Senator Hubert Humphrey.
In 1972, when 62 percent of the electorate chose President Richard Nixon, 81 percent of the media elite voted for liberal Democratic Senator George McGovern.
In 1976, the Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter, captured the allegiance of 81 percent of the reporters surveyed while a mere 19 percent cast their ballots for President Gerald Ford.
Over the 16-year period, the Republican candidate always received less than 20 percent of the media elite�¢??s vote.
Lichter and Rothman’s survey of journalists discovered that “Fifty-four percent placed themselves to the left of center, compared to only 19 percent who chose the right side of the spectrum.”
“Fifty-six percent said the people they worked with were mostly on the left, and only 8 percent on the right Ã?¢?? a margin of seven-to-one.”
�¢??Where I work at ABC, people say �¢??conservative�¢?? the way people say �¢??child molester.�¢??�¢??
�¢?? ABC 20/20 co-anchor John Stossel to CNSNews.com reporter Robert Bluey, in a story posted January 28, 2004.
Ã?¢??The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness. Too often, we wear liberalism on our sleeve and are intolerant of other lifestyles and opinions…WeÃ?¢??re not very subtle about it at this paper: If you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat. IÃ?¢??ve been in communal gatherings in The Post, watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democrats.Ã?¢??
�¢?? Washington Post �¢??Book World�¢?? editor Marie Arana in a contribution to the Post�¢??s �¢??daily in-house electronic critiques,�¢?? as quoted by Post media reporter Howard Kurtz in an October 3, 2005 article.
Newsweek�¢??s Evan Thomas: �¢??Is this attack [on public broadcasting�¢??s budget] going to make NPR a little less liberal?�¢??
NPR legal correspondent Nina Totenberg: �¢??I don�¢??t think we�¢??re liberal to begin with and I think if you would listen, Evan, you would know that.�¢??
Thomas: �¢??I do listen to you and you�¢??re not that liberal, but you�¢??re a little bit liberal.�¢??
Totenberg: �¢??No, I don�¢??t think so. I don�¢??t think that�¢??s a fair criticism, I really don�¢??t �¢?? any more than, any more than you would say that Newsweek is liberal.�¢??
Thomas: �¢??I think Newsweek is a little liberal.�¢??
�¢?? Exchange on the June 26, 2005 Inside Washington.
�¢??There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it�¢??s very dangerous. That�¢??s different from the media doing it�¢??s job of challenging the exercise of power without fear or favor.�¢??
�¢?? ABC News White House correspondent Terry Moran talking with Los Angeles-based national radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, May 17, 2005.
�¢??I believe it is true that a significant chunk of the press believes that Democrats are incompetent but good-hearted, and Republicans are very efficient but evil.�¢??
�¢?? Wall Street Journal political editor John Harwood on the April 23, 2005 Inside Washington.
Ã?¢??I worked for the New York Times for 25 years. I could probably count on one hand, in the Washington bureau of the New York Times, people who would describe themselves as people of faith…I think one of the real built-in biases in the media is towards secularism…You want diversity in the newsroom, not because of some quota, but because you have to have diversity to cover the story well and cover all aspects of a society. And you donÃ?¢??t have religious people making the decisions about where coverage is focused. And I think thatÃ?¢??s one of the faults.Ã?¢??
�¢?? Former New York Times reporter Steve Roberts, now a journalism professor at George Washington University, on CNN�¢??s Reliable Sources, March 27, 2005.
Ã?¢??Personally, I have a great affection for CBS News…But I stopped watching it some time ago. The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me. I still check in, but less and less frequently. I increasingly drift to NBC News and Fox and MSNBC.Ã?¢??
�¢?? Former CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter in an op-ed published January 13, 2005 in the Los Angeles Times.
Joe Scarborough: �¢??Is there a liberal bias in the media or is the bias towards getting the story first and getting the highest ratings, therefore, making the most money?�¢??
Former ABC 20/20 anchor Hugh Downs: �¢??Well, I think the latter, by far. And, of course, when the word �¢??liberal�¢?? came to be a pejorative word, you began to wonder, you have to say that the press doesn�¢??t want to be thought of as merely liberal. But people tend to be more liberated in their thought when they are closer to events and know a little more about what the background of what�¢??s happening. So, I suppose, in that respect, there is a liberal, if you want to call it a bias. The press is a little more in touch with what�¢??s happening.�¢??
�¢?? MSNBC�¢??s Scarborough Country, January 10, 2005.
�¢??Does anybody really think there wouldn�¢??t have been more scrutiny if this [CBS�¢??s bogus 60 Minutes National Guard story] had been about John Kerry?�¢??
�¢?? Former 60 Minutes Executive Producer Don Hewitt at a January 10, 2005 meeting at CBS News, as quoted later that day by Chris Matthews on MSNBC�¢??s Hardball.
�¢??The notion of a neutral, non-partisan mainstream press was, to me at least, worth holding onto. Now it�¢??s pretty much dead, at least as the public sees things. The seeds of its demise were sown with the best of intentions in the late 1960s, when the AMMP [American Mainstream Media Party] was founded in good measure (and ironically enough) by CBS. Old folks may remember the moment: Walter Cronkite stepped from behind the podium of presumed objectivity to become an outright foe of the war in Vietnam. Later, he and CBS�¢??s star White House reporter, Dan Rather, went to painstaking lengths to make Watergate understandable to viewers, which helped seal Richard Nixon�¢??s fate as the first President to resign. The crusades of Vietnam and Watergate seemed like a good idea at the time, even a noble one, not only to the press but perhaps to a majority of Americans. The problem was that, once the AMMP declared its existence by taking sides, there was no going back. A party was born.�¢??
�¢?? Newsweek�¢??s chief political reporter, Howard Fineman, �¢??The �¢??Media Party�¢?? is over: CBS�¢?? downfall is just the tip of the iceberg,�¢?? January 11 , 2005.
�¢??Most members of the establishment media live in Washington and New York. Most of them don�¢??t drive pickup trucks, most of them don�¢??t have guns, most of them don�¢??t go to NASCAR, and every day we�¢??re not out in areas that care about those things and deal with those things as part of their daily lives, we are out of touch with a lot of America and with a lot of America that supports George W. Bush.�¢??
�¢?? ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin during live television coverage immediately before John Kerry�¢??s concession speech on November 3, 2004.
http://www.mrc.org/realitycheck/archive.aspx
The following is an article that talks about Obama getting more favorable articles over John McCain last time around–Oh wait you’ve already rationalized that one didn’t you? It’s because Obama was a rock star and John McCain was just an ordinary person.
http://www.cmpa.com/media_room_press_12_2_08.htm
“Study Finds Obama Got Best TV News Coverage Since 1988”
Okay, okay let’s not even count Obama after all he’s so black and cool that the liberal media couldn’t help but fall all over him.
What about John Kerry is he a rock star too?
“The report reveals a strong negative cast to ABC, CBS and NBC news coverage of the president thus far in 2004. Meanwhile, Senator John Kerry, Bush’s certain opponent for November, has received more positive coverage by the same three networks.”
http://www.alternet.org/story/18104/media_runs_hot_for_kerry,_cold_for_bush/
And was Al Gore a rock star? How about Bill Clinton? Oh yes he was a rock star so we can’t count his 2-1 favorable news coverage over Bush Sr.
That anyone would even doubt in 2012 that the media is bias toward the democratic party and liberalism in general is absolutely laughable!
Please Mufasa stick to the many things that you do know about and leave this one alone. Because on this topic you are truly clueless!
Thank you,
Zeb
[/quote]
Yeah, well, and what good did it do for Gore or Kerry?
Seems to me that an argument can be made that the media are biased, but what cannot be ignored is that the relatively few conservative voices, if one can call them that, have a hyyyyyoooooge audience compared to the liberal ones and that it does not seem to have that much of an impact.
Apologies for imÃ??lying that a station like Fox News is actually “conservative” I am off to the shower to have a good, cleansing cry.
edited
