Posted on 03/20/2005 11:31:59 AM PST by kevin fortuna
To judge from the e-mails I received during the four years I spent on the White House beat, Post readers of all political ideologies agree: I am biased.
But in which direction?
A conservative magazine put me on its cover as "Dana 'Bias' Milbank." A liberal Web site made me its "Media Whore of the Week," and a posting on a liberal blog proposed "Whore" as my middle name. (I've decided to combine the "Bias" and "Whore" suggestions and make my middle name, simply, "Bore.")
In political journalism, complaints from ideologically driven readers come with the territory; sometimes I've gotten dueling complaints that I have betrayed my conservative and liberal biases in the same story. But I think the growing volume and the vitriol of the bias accusations are part of a new -- and dangerous -- development.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
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.
you should really send it, maybe as a letter to editor of WP
I always though that his middle name was Piss-ant.
"...especially O'Reilly--they think if they can find one person who calls them "conservative biased"..."
O.K. I'm confused? Are you saying Bill O'Reilly is liberal?
Good idea. I just submitted the post as a letter to the editor.
I played twenty questions with a liberal friend of mine before the election to try to get him to admit to any form of bias. His idea of the middle was Al Gore. Milbank isn't fooling anyone.
Actually, he's fairly honest and realistic, if liberal. Kind of like Mort Kondracke. Milbank goes on Ingraham and has an amiable conversation. He hasn't drunk the Kool-Aid. The only annoying thing about him is that he steadfastly refuses to admit his bias.
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.
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.
Thats really not that odd, if you listen to the media carefully, they think the democrats are the mainstream, the voters are right of center, and the republicans are radical right.
This same view point applies to most elitists, especially acadamia, which thinks democrats are moderates, and they themselves are left of center but that most voters are outside the middle and (this is funny) out of the mainstream.
I had a professor in college who used to argue how the majority of America was actually out of touch with the mainstream. The idea that the majority is the mainstream, was foreign to this guy, and many other liberals.
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?
Hello Mr. Milbank,
Contained in the text of your column, titled, “My Bias for Mainstream News,” you included the following quote from the “Project for Excellence in Journalism” annual report.
“And since journalists are trained to be skeptics and aspire at least, in the famous phrase, to speak truth to power,”
Trained skeptics??? That is the problem “journalist” are not very well “trained skeptics.”
For example(s):
--When it comes to the subject of the ACLU suing to remove religious symbols from public property, the “trained skeptics” at the Washington Post never ask the ACLU how they would reconcile their suit position, with the second part of Amendment I, concerning religious symbols: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” Why not?
--When Sen. Boxer or Lautenberg propose assault weapon gun control legislation, the “trained skeptics” at the Washington Post, never confront those two Senators about how their proposed legislation may be in conflict with Amendment II and Miller v US, the controlling Supreme Court case on the proper interpretation of Amendment II. Why not?
--When there is a published article printed in the Washington Post by one of the staff writers about the subject of illegal immigration, the “trained skeptics” at the Washington Post, never confront any member of the House or the Senate about their constitutional obligation as defined in Article I, Section 8, Cl 15: “To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions: Why not?
--When staff writers compose articles about airport security and the TSA, the “trained skeptics” at the Washington Post, never confront members of Congress or TSA officials about the constitutional conflict that exists from the TSA’s modus operandi and Amendment IV. Why not?
--When staff writers compose articles about minimum wage laws, employer mandated medical insurance laws, or ADA laws, the “trained skeptics” at the Washington Post, never confront those advocates with the constitutional issue that these laws violate Amendment V: “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.” The Supreme Court as recently as 2002 as ruled that money is property. Why not?
--When the staff writers at the Washington Post compose an article about the issues of drug interdiction or for that matter Rush Limbaugh’s legal entanglement with his use of pain suppression medication, the “trained skeptics” at the Washington Post, never confront legislators, law enforcement, or prosecutors with constitutional conflict of drug interdiction and control with the rights protection of Amendment IX: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Or more simply ask the following question: If it took a constitutional amendment to prohibit the consumption of alcohol, why does it not take a constitutional amendment to prohibit the consumption of any other type of chemical by free people? Why not?
I quit reading publications (other than for a good laugh) such as the Washington Post, the New York Times, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Time, Newsweek, etc., because the “trained” skepticism wasn’t there, as proudly proclaimed.
It is very interesting that all of the publications above, as well as political commentators on CNN, MSNBC, and the news readers on ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news broadcasts, all reported on Dick Cheney’s “gravitas” that he would bring to a potential first term George Bush administration when Mr. Cheney was selected to be Mr. Bush’s vice-presidential running mate.
Is that the work of “journalists…trained (as) skeptics?”
We both know the answer to that rhetorical question.
Thank you for your time spent reading this e-mail message.
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.