Media Watchdog Launches Media Liberal Bias Campaign

CNSNews.com ^ | June 18, 2004 | Melanie Hunter

[seastay]

A media watchdog group is launching an ambitious campaign to reach 50 million people every week with evidence of the media's liberal bias.

"Day after day, night after night, the news media question, denounce, or just plain ignore the good news. They want higher taxes to fund massive new federal spending for more liberal experiments like socialized health care," said Brent Bozell, president of the Media Research Center and founder of CNSNews.com .

"They want America -- and the world -- to see our military as corrupt and barbaric -- and failing. And they'll denounce anyone or anything that stands in the way of that message."

The "Tell the Truth" campaign will include full-page ads and billboards in top media markets, and thousands of bumper stickers, coffee mugs, pens and t-shirts bearing the "Tell the Truth" slogan. The campaign also includes daily email CyberAlerts; and a weekly fax report with the "Worst of the Week," identifying the most egregious bias.

Several special reports will be issued. One recent report documents the media's hostility towards the policies of former President Ronald Reagan that they now acknowledge were monumental achievements.

The MRC's Free Market Project will release four studies documenting the media's agenda against the food industry, in favor of higher taxes and greater environmental activism, and against tort reform. Special features will be included on TimesWatch.org, a site dedicated to the New York Times' bias.

A Pew Research Center for People and the Press poll of the national news media published this spring revealed the media admits its bias. By a factor of 5-1, they label themselves as liberal over conservative.

According to Bozell, the media has dropped the ball in its coverage of the economy, the war in Afghanistan, the war in Iraq, and the war on terrorism.

We don't want a 'conservative' news media," Bozell said. "We want, and demand, truth . We want the news media to strive for objectivity at all times. We want balance. We want fairness."

[torchthemummy]

This is our version of a 527. And for people that think that W is being too soft in his campaign, just wait until after the Dem convention. Then there will be daily refutations of the such Cheney made yesterday when he backslapped the NYT!

[BigSkyFreeper]

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_061804/content/the_left_assaults_rush.guest.html

[Tom_Busch]

ahh...Thanks!

[BigSkyFreeper]

I'll be surprised as Hell if the Republicans in the Senate join in the fight.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Welcome :)

[torchthemummy]

It seems to me that W and Co knew before and have since been proven right that the Dems would keep shooting themselves in the foot.

As far as the Pubbies being strong, I know some will disagree but I think that this is a year to show maturity while not being timid. The Dem bellyaches will do the rest. If we win big in this election, I believe there will some tougher stands made in the 2005 to 2007 session. We need to win this one decisively so that we can have four more years to clean up the Clinton mess, particuarly the War On Terrorism and judicial nominations.

[BigSkyFreeper]

The "Pubbies" should have acted like they were in the majority 2 years ago, rather than fudging around and bowing to the demands of the Democrats and not fighting hard for Bush's judicial nominations.

The War On Terror, thankfully, won't be fought entirely in the Senate, by the Senate.

The Democrats will shoot themselves in the foot, regardless. The Clinton mess will be with us for longer than 4 more years, but, having Bush in the White House for 4 more years will help. But, we have a lot of catching up to do. Frankly, the first act of terrorism came under Carter's watch. It just took 9/11 to wake this country up to the realities of terrorism.

It's easier for the Republicans to keep the Democrats on defense, rather than giving them the ball every damn time and watching the Republicans continually play defense, because that's what the Republicans are doing, playing defense. The Republican's in the Senate may have a small majority, but they don't act like a party that wants a bigger majority.

[torchthemummy]

All valid points.

As Ronald Reagan said when something went wrong - "It must be right - it was God's will."

I'm sure God's will is our shared desire for W to stay another four years.

On one point that really rings true, that it will take more than eight years to clean up Clinton's mess, is similar to how one can break a bone in a second and take years to fully recover.

I'm hitting the hay but appreciate your input.

[Peach]

I love MRC. Sometimes the bias they cite is a stretch, but generally and more often it's so blatant that only a blind man couldn't see it.

[Tamzee]

Yes, indeed.... I do love that graphic :-)

[drjimmy]

Er, all I see in this article is ways he's trying to SPEND money. And a hell of a lot of it. I'm not seeing how he's going to -get- any money out of this whole thing.

Go to the "Tell the Truth" home page. See the box at the right. Click on "National Advertisement," and there is a pitch for money. If you then click on "See the actual advertisement," you will see that half of the so-called actual advertisement is itself a pitch for more money. Go back to the home page and click on "Billboards." Once again you will first see a pitch for money. I assume I don't have to tell you that the billboards depicted in the photographs don't actually exist yet. Go back to the home page again and click on "Combat Kits." Yes, by donating money you can get a lot of junk.

Of course the article made it sound like Bozell was going to be spending a lot of money and not like this was a fund-raising ploy. Bozell runs the company that put out the article!

[drjimmy]

Cite in this article where it says he's trying to raise money. Near as I can tell, he's spending most of it on full page advertising. CyberAlerts are cheap and easy to disseminate.

See post #31. Not only are the CyberAlerts cheap and easy, but they are already being done! If you want to see any national ads and billboards being placed by Bozell, however, you're gonna have to pony up some cash.

[1L]

IMO we need lawsuits, and lots of them. Sue them on fraud charges for deliberately misinforming their audience

This is liberal-like thinking. As such, it is absurd. First, a newspaper owes no duty to anyone and second, virtually any issue involving content is protected by First Amendment guarantees.

[thoughtomator]

Even a newspaper is bound by false-advertising laws. If they advertise that they print "all the news fit to print", and in practice are clearly doing otherwise, they're liable.

You have a better suggestion? Shall we simply whine endlessly about their malfeasance, or shall we do something substantial about it?

[BigSkyFreeper]

LOL. I have to pay to see a roadside billboard? Yes, I know CyberAlerts are/were/have been done, that's nothing new. I don't need Bozell to convince me the media is rampant with liberal bias, that's been known to me for a long, long time. I'm not part of the target audience, so if he wants to spend money, more power to him.

[BigSkyFreeper]

virtually any issue involving content is protected by First Amendment guarantees.

Slander and libel are not covered by the First Amendment. So, no, not "virtually any issue" is protected.

[1L]

Even a newspaper is bound by false-advertising laws. If they advertise that they print "all the news fit to print", and in practice are clearly doing otherwise, they're liable.

Liable for what? What defines whether they are "doing otherwise"?

You have a better suggestion?

Do I have a better suggestion for what? The law?

Shall we simply whine endlessly about their malfeasance, or shall we do something substantial about it?

1)Stop buying and advertising in any paper you don't like.

2)Try to get as many people to do the same.

3)Start an alternative paper/network and counter the BS.

Suing them for frivilous stuff is NOT substantial and definitely not productive. You won't find a good attorney to take a case he knows he might sanctioned in.

[thoughtomator]

Here are a couple of possibilities others have suggested:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1137951/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1138018/posts

As far as false advertising goes, if they promise potential customers that they don't have a political agenda, and a rat on the inside can be found to testify that they do, then that's false advertising under law.

You may be content to let them freely engage in sedition without opposition, but I for one will seek any method available to stick it to them as long as their behavior remains the same.