It's easy to figure out which of your critics are accurate and which are barking moonbats: Give us your voting history.
He really had to dig to find someone accusing him of being "conservative".
This is an annoying habit many writers have, especially O'Reilly--they think if they can find one person who calls them "conservative biased" that it somehow balances out all the proof that they are biased to the left, and vice versa.
This article is a clever way for the no longer "mainstream media" to say that they get crticized from both sides, therefore they represent the middle.
Any conservative who has been seeing the MSM's over the years has no doubt that they actually lean left. That's the reason why the alternate media is dominated by conservatives. The need was far greater on the right.
So the MSM's can twist facts any way they want to. They'll still lose due to their bias, a self-inflicted wound.
My e-mail to Dana Milbank:
At one time I chaired the examination committee for the Casualty Actuarial Society. In your article yesterday, you quoted two survey questions that I would not have permitted on our exams because they're ambiguous.
One question asked whether Iraq had stockpiles of WMDs or major illegal weapons programs at the time of the US invasion. I think the right answer is that we don't know. We know that they did not have WMD stockpiles in 2004, when the Duelfer report was written. However, we also know that they did have stockpiles of chemical weapons in 1998, when the UN inspectors left. We don't know when they disposed of those stockpiles. The New York Times last week had a story about massive looting of weapons right after the war. We cannot prove whether those stockpiles were among what was looted. Thus, the survey question couldn't be answered with certainty.
How big is a "major" weapons program? The Duelfer report said that Iraq had illegal WMD programs, but they weren't "active". "Active" isn't the same as "major". So, the correct answer to this question depends on one's subjective definition of the word "major".
A similar ambiguity involves the words "collaborative" and "substantial". The 9/11 Commission found no "collaborative" relationship between al Qaeda an Iraq although there was some degree of relationship. Was the degree of relationship enough to be called "substantial"? Who knows?
In short, because of its poor design, these two survey questions prove nothing.
I always though that his middle name was Piss-ant.
Right, this happens all the time. Since the left-wing bias of the MSM has become so well documented and widely discussed, the Left's tactic is shrill denial in the face of all evidence. You hear loony libs say things like this all the time. It goes along with liberals' tendency to refer to themselves as 'moderate' or 'centrist'.
Is this guy a major writer for the Washington Post?
Seems like a typical freshman vanity composition on how they were the sharpest kid in their hometown (population of 250.)
The automatic assumption that because corporations are corporations, they must be republican in support.
Disney owns ABC news, its CEO is Michael Eisner, who has a huge history of fiscal support for the democratic party and well known personal liberal beliefs, its chairman is former democratic senate majority leader George Mithell, this alone should show this idea is absurd.
If you want to know how far out of sync the left is, realize that they regularly accuse fellow liberals of conservative bias (see CBS, and its chairman, and board, most of whom not only donate to the democratic party, but who also help raise funds for it, and the chairman, in his own autobiography, refers to himself as a liberal democrat).
The 2nd reason, most liberals accuse the media of being conservative, and use the terms "media whores" is because the media refuses to publish or acknowledge conspiracy theories such as rigged voting machines (though several networks actually did, and with one exception, debunked them) or the whole "Bush planned or knew about 9/11" ideas.
The refusal to acknowledge conspiracy theories that are so absurd and without any kind of evidence whatsoever that credibility of the networks (which are already in trouble) would drop to olberman levels, alone explains that.
Conservative bias is not usually through omission, but more through what is stated, and the fact that the political beliefs of the reporter can be inferred from statements, something the far left itself, can not be able to tell, but which the right has far greater accuracy in being able to verify.
Types of Bias: Descriptions and Examples of Each
Bias by Commission:
A pattern of passing along assumptions or errors that tend to support a left-wing or liberal view.
Bias by Omission:
Ignoring facts that tend to disprove liberal or left-wing claims, or that support conservative beliefs.
Bias by Story Selection:
A pattern of highlighting news stories that coincide with the agenda of the Left while ignoring stories that coincide with the agenda of the Right.
Bias by Placement:
A pattern of placing news stories so as to downplay information supportive of conservative views.
Bias by the Selection of Sources:
Including more sources in a story who support one view over another. This bias can also be seen when a reporter uses such phrases as "experts believe," "observers say," or "most people think."
Bias by Spin:
Emphasizing aspects of a policy favorable to liberals without noting aspects favorable to conservatives; putting out the liberal interpretation of what an event means while giving little or no time or space to explaining the conservative interpretation.
Bias by Labeling:
Attaching a label to conservatives but not to liberals; using more extreme labeling for conservatives than for liberals; identifying a liberal person or group as an "expert" or as independent.
Bias by Policy Recommendation or Condemnation:
When a reporter goes beyond reporting and endorses the liberal view of which policies should be enacted, or affirms the liberal criticism of current or past policies.
I guess the nyslimes is a christian conservative paper now?
The media has a built in "democratic party" bias, not necessarily a "liberal" bias. Most so-called liberals, are much further to the left than even the main stream of the democratic party. This is why they think Fox is extremely right wing and the MSM still to the right of where they sit.
The media is not fundamentally philosophical, they are however accurately described as members of the democratic party.
I believe Dana in this about as much as I believe his writing. . . not very much. I've never heard anyone say that he was biased in any but anti-American, Bush-hating, vitriolic liberal way!