The only reason that they are being exposed for the libtard freaks they are, is that the Alternate Media and Fox News is kicking their butts up around their heads! Kudos to Al Gore for inventing the Internet!
Posted on 08/16/2004 5:09:09 AM PDT by Pikamax
Ken Rodriguez: Public disclosure: Media are finally admitting their biases
Web Posted: 08/13/2004 12:00 AM CDT
San Antonio Express-News
Some years ago, professional wrestling unmasked itself. The circus sport of body slams and flying drop kicks admitted what everyone had known all along: The blows are fake, the matches are rigged, wrestlers win and lose according to script.
Today, bit by bit, the media also are unmasking themselves. In one disclosure after another, the media are admitting what many have known all along: Most of those who report and edit the news hold liberal points of view.
Consider these recent admissions:
On July 25, the New York Times headlined a story with a question: Is the Times a liberal paper?
The 1,707-word story began with these words: "Of course it is."
Public editor Daniel Okrent began the piece by addressing "the flammable stuff that ignites the right" — gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation.
"And if you think the Times plays it down the middle on any of them," Okrent wrote, "you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed."
On June 3, the Christian Science Monitor ran this headline: "Newsroom conservatives are a rare breed."
The newspaper reported a survey showing that only 7 percent of national reporters, editors and media executives consider themselves conservative.
David Yarnold, editor and vice president of the San Jose Mercury News, told the Christian Science Monitor, "We should acknowledge that maybe the biggest problem is that most of us think too much alike and come from the same backgrounds. Find the pro-lifers in a newsroom. That's harder than finding Waldo."
On April 19, the Dallas Morning News penned an editorial headlined, "Unvarnished truth? Perception of bias undermines media."
The Morning News wrote, "It's time that we in the Fourth Estate admit that liberal media bias isn't a figment of Rush Limbaugh's imagination.
"Studies by the American Society of Newspaper Editors, the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Knight Foundation have shown that, on average, journalists are much more politically and culturally liberal and secular than their readers."
The admissions are important. Poll after poll shows that public trust in the media is waning. One reason is the perception that stories are presented with a slant to the left.
Sometimes the bias is subtle. In a 2001 Washington Post editorial about the "liberal" media, Robert J. Samuelson wrote, "Some groups and ideas are treated well in coverage, because they seem praiseworthy and 'right.' Others are disdained, because they seem questionable, undesirable or 'fringe.'"
Sometimes liberal bias is obvious. A Roper Poll of 139 Washington bureau chiefs and correspondents in 1992 showed that 89 percent had voted for Bill Clinton, 7 percent for George Bush.
"Margins of victory that lopsided are rarely seen this side of Syria," wrote Charles Krauthammer of the Washington Post.
This isn't to suggest a vast left-wing conspiracy. The New York Times, Newsweek and CNN do not convene daily to see how they can put a liberal spin on stories.
Indeed, many journalists are skilled at reporting two sides of an issue. But a reporter's views can sometimes be detected in presentation, in the emphasis of certain facts and quotes and in a story's ending.
Many correctly note that there are prominent conservative media voices, such as Fox News and the Rush Limbaughs of talk radio.
Many would point out that the Washington Post just acknowledged an imbalance of reporting that benefited President Bush on the decision to go to war.
And many reporters would say they can check their political leanings at the door.
Clearly some can, but why were so many on their feet, giving Sen. John Kerry standing ovations at a recent conference for minority journalists?
And why were so many snickering — or strangely silent — when President Bush spoke?
I would not have cheered — I'm not crazy about either candidate — but I might have smiled.
Because, intentionally or not, the media are peeling off a mask to reveal their bias.
Thanks for the post. I think the more insidious thing is that liberal members of the press tell themselves and others that they are "middle of the road".
If a conservative is good enough to make it as a journalist, they go on to make even more money as a publicist.
Journalism is a job for idealists. The pay is lousy, the hours can suck, and nobody ever really appreciates your work. Promotions are slow in coming, syndication is all but impossible for most, and the Associated Press and UPI write most of the articles that fill the pages of the papers anyhow. Nobody likes you, everybody hates you, and death threats are normal for all but the least motivated reporters.
Why would a conservative put up with that kind of crap?
| Professor's Study Shows Liberal Bias in News Media | ||||||
|
Great Debate#9 Break up Microsoft?...Then how about the media "Big Six"? [ ... -Poll confirms Ivy League liberal tilt--
A poll by the Center for the Study of Social and Political Change in 1992, eighty-three percent of film and television writers, directors and producers voted for Bill Clinton. Eighty-three percent. The vote that Clinton received in the country at large, forty-three percent.
|
||||||
We're liberal but it sure doesn't show in our reporting.
There is a South Texas word for that Bull$h!+
I heard somewhere that there is a group of "Journalists" who call themselves the "Gang of 500" who occasionally get together on a large conference line and discuss latest news and how it should be presented. Perhaps they only meet weekly, or bi-weekly, or monthly? Has anyone else heard this? Wouldn't that constitute a "vast left-wing conspiracy"?
It is wonderful that the partisan press is finally beginning to admit to liberal bias, but they don't seem to be inclined to do anything to rectify the situation. I'd like to see every news story begin with a disclosure of the reporters party affiliation.
Wouldn't you think many members of the media would be members of the SPJ? If so, do they follow the ethics code as set out on their ethics page? ("Minimize Harm" and
"Act Independently" lists are too lengthy to add...read them for yourself).
Society of Professional Journalists
http://www.spj.org/ethics_code.asp
Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.
Journalists should:
• Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
• Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
• Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
• Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
• Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
• Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
• Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
• Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
• Never plagiarize.
• Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
• Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
• Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
• Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
• Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
• Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
• Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
• Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.
Well said. However, I disagree about the revolution stuff (by force). The American people will never make a change UNLESS it hits them in their wallet, gas stations, and dinner table. If it ever affected these items, Americans would demand a change but by force, I don't see it.
I am with you on the fact that the Gov't pisses away ZILLIONS of tax dollars through pure bullshit. The ONLY way to change that is to demand: (1) TERM LIMIT, a politico gets ONE SHOT, (2) NO PAY, NO PENSION. Make the pukes a REAL civil servant. Give them a dorm, free chow, and very little else. They are there to WORK. Again, until EVERYONE votes Libertarian, we're just wasting our vote by voting Libertarian.
like duh bump.
There's the key right there. "Diversity" always means shallow concepts like skin color and sexual preference. "We got the viewpoint of a white liberal, a black liberal, a female liberal and a gay liberal".
"Diversity" is never meant to include the viewpoints of conservatives.
This is my favorite part. The Emperor's New Clothes in palpable format. The Emperor found himself in a house of mirrors where, eventually, he cannot deny the obvious. But the story does not end there. It goes beyond that. The same thing that "ignites" the right, drives the left to madness and mass delusion and denial. Helped along, of course by people like Coulter and Limbaugh who use the "progressive's" own techniques against them and they have no defense against that, other than irrationality.
Then it becomes projection. The truly rewarding thing about listening to Bevis and Butthead" Radio (aka Air America) is to listen to a five-minute rant about all the despicable behavior of the "right", complete with descriptions of pathological behaviour and invective, and suddenly realize that they are describing themselves. This never fails to elicit a guffaw from me in the unlikeliest of places. Of late, it seems, on a daily basis.
The political views of journalists is not the point-it's how stories are presented. Yesterday at 10:40AM PDT I watched MSNBC reporting on the hurricane in Florida. They talked about the President's visit and showed him arriving but had no audio; you never heard his comments or voice. Switch to Kerry expressing concern and sympathy, his remarks were aired. The point is : notice how the press TELLS us what Bush has said, but wants us to hear and see Kerry speak. Bush is also usually paraphrased. It's subtle, but notice how much more often you hear Kerry's voice but President Bush is presented as more of an abstract presence, not a person. FWIW.
It's getting a bit tiresome to hear Fox being called "Conservative" simply because they allow a conservative viewpoint into the mix of arguments. The fact is that Fox has on infinitely more liberals than conservatives, in their prime-time line-up, especially. The only true Conservative on Fox prime-time is Sean Hannity -- and even he is only representing HALF a program. At most points during he day or evening, there are usually BOTH liberal and conservative guests/viewpoints within the same segment.
Fox should NOT be considered "conservative," simply because they allow conservative views to get aired. This should be a normal journalistic standard for every station.
And as far as Rush Limbaugh is concerned, he has never claimed to be unbiased. His program is openly conservative, and exists to combat the overwhelming liberal bias in all areas of the news media.
Rush spole of the "gang" last week and he doesn't like to talk about media bias because it would encompass his whole show.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.