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!
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.
like duh bump.
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.
I don't care if they are liberal but I do care about the bias. Who, what, when, where, how? Just the news. I can figure out what to think all by my little, bitty self.
**Because, intentionally or not, the media are peeling off a mask to reveal their bias.**
Slowly but surely we are learn who
ABCNNBCBS
abd bytlatwp
really are.
Bump and bookmarked
bttt