...could it be the American press is biased in favor of Democrats?!  Gasp.  Or do they just donate more bucks to Dems while maintaining their... uh... objectivity and impartiality in spite of putting their money where their pens aren't.

Here's the article that MSNBC no doubt agonized over publishing. 

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Journalism is taught in the US at Columbia and other Ivy League colleges staffed by Seymore Hersh types. The young minds are rewarded for being with the left wing program and are entered into the "club" with it's jobs, money and social elitism. 

Now is about the time that Fox news is brought up -oh boy, one outlet out of 30 40 print, cable and broadcast outlets. The libs want Fox shut down-that way there is NO ONE to occasionally challenge the left wing religion of government nanny care and weak international mush.  IMO.

The journalists are 90 % left wing. It is amazing the common people are sometimes able to overcome the stacked deck.

Oh how I would like to see that gentleman Hero and his bright friend Log Weasel come out for capitalism and freedom, rather than multiculturism and whealth redistribution. What a saving grace that would be ! Hope springs eternal.

It looks like donations were given to republicans as well. To me a field reporter giving $500 to the Kerry campaign is pretty much a snooze and there is no law against it. I guess we probably should not let reporters vote either, since they are likely to have a biased opinion in support of who they voted for.

My problem is many conservatives tend to play the "bias" victim to much when the news they don't like is reported and it kind of irks me a little. They get mad because its always the media's liberal elites fault for brainwashing America, when in fact republicans have been winning elections and holding the most power for quite a long time and are hardly ever held accountable by your average American.

Bush is getting a lot of heat from the press for his low approval ratings, but so is the democratic congress for the bad job they are doing. I think we tend to focus in more on we think is a negative attack against our own viewpoint. I tend to lean more left these days, but to me I think the press for example gives Bush so many passes when it comes to covering some of what I consider real issues related to this administration's policies. So in my viewpoint I think the media tends not to lean left......but not cover the real hard issues period.

Don't get me wrong, the news media is pretty bad in America, but that's our own fault for supporting tabloid news. I wish people would just stop supporting that kind of trash reporting from so called "respected journalists" on highly overproduced T.V. news. It's much more porfitible to cover celebrity news than hard news.

It's the smaller newspaper, low paid, hard working field journalists out there that usually break worthy news, but they very rarely get much respect for their hard work since these small articles fall under the radar usually. I say lets not blame the liberal news machine, but Americans with the attention span of Rush Limbaugh's limp penis.

R_Flagg

Nice to see you back again, R_Flagg!

I printed out the 38 page report from MSNBC. Haven't read everyone's responses yet but they contacted each of the 144 journalists some of whom were food, sports, fashion or film writers.

Yeah some people gripe about liberal bias and others yuk over limp penises and fatso bodies of one conservative radio talk show host.

Then others leap in to note that Rush is a commentator in the same way that Keith Olbermann is a commentator. It is expected to hear personal opinion from commentators. I always harken back to the day I met Teddy Kennedy at a $500 a plate dinner in Beverly Hills and my question to him was about the impact of Rush Limbaugh on the voting public. This was 1992 and I was still a registered Dem. His astute retort: "Rush Limbaugh is a big asshole." Took me by surprise even then.

Listen I'm with you in disliking almost all major news outlets these days. In fact, I don't think you'll ever find me defending FOX as one of my fave sources of information. I don't want to see news anchors giggling between each other, discussing their kids, getting familiar with one another, raising their eyebrows, making clever quips. I do not want to watch some meaningless local news story about a house fire where three kids died in another part of the country. I do not want to watch videophone images of teenage girls fighting just because the video is available. I don't need to know about every missing woman who was most likely murdered by her boyfriend or husband. I don't want to watch the usual talking head Dem-Rep strategists telling me why so and so is ahead or behind in the polls this week. I don't want the other talking head defense attorneys-prosecutors telling me why a high profile trial is going in one direction or another. Mainly, I guess I do not want someone else's filtering system to tell me how to view the What, Where, When and Who. There should be room for that kind of news coverage, shouldn't there?

I only mention the article because of the denials that the press is largely liberal. I expect it to be. It has always made sense to me that they would be liberal as I might expect financial news writers to be conservative. I don't think it has to be a problem. There are other more significant problems with news outlets.

It is fairly meaningful when it comes to coverage of the presidency when the journalists revile the president. It is also meaningful when the journalists covering the war in Iraq are donating to anti-war organizations. And what's good for geese is good for ganders -- when the journalists write about political donations coming from wealthy citizens, PAC groups, celebrities or corporations, why not have the same transparency with those who write the stories?

 Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

"It looks like donations were given to republicans as well. "

That's true, but you didn't mention the ratios. 2 - that is TWO - journalists gave to BOTH parties. Now for the staggering number - 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Yes, it's perfectly legal, and perfectly okay.

Yeah, it's all fun to complain about the news bias in the media - it's a bandwagon thing EXCEPT there is a problem - when people start screaming and hollering about how FoxNews is so right-wing, and totally ignore the rest of the media, or can't see the biasness in other media (ie BBC).

But more importantly is when you have Boxer and Hillary talking about how the govt needs "to fix" talk radio because it's oh so powerful through the use of the fairness doctorine, and whatever else they can come up. These are LIBERALS who are supposed to be for FREE SPEECH and FREE IDEAS that they demand on everyone else, but instead they are falling into a type of McCarthyism for their own protection. Talk radio is a market-driven media, and the govt stepping in to curb these commentators rights to go on and on about this or that is completely wrong -- and un-Constitutional, perhaps?

I think Susan's last paragraph hits the nail on the head, and it's something I've always tried to push -- consistency. If you are going to complain about X when the REpublicans do it, you better complain about X when Democrats do it, and vice-versa. People need to know who they are getting their news from, esp with big issues. Transparency, transcparecy, transparency!!

Media is tabloid media - that's what happens when you have to fill up 24 hours of news. Paris Hilton becomes more important than immigration, for example. It's just a harsh reality that we have to deal with.

I don't have a problem with a liberal (or conservative) media as long as people quit trying to tell me that FNC is the problem and no one else is. At least with conservative talk radio - you know thier slant and their angle - it's harder to find that when you are watching the nightly news -- the story may seem fair, but the question always remains - what is the repoter not telling and why? That's why it's critical we many news agencies -- all of which will compete against each other. Once a company starts gobbling up the media, and you have no competition, then we have a situation much like we saw in the early 1900s with -- oh, what's his face -- William Hearst - that's it.

Jordan .

Well Jordan, that is the state of affairs today. Hillery and Boxer can not stand to allow a section of the lowly AM band to say anything that goes against their leftist orthodoxy. It is unbearable to them. They will use the law to control what you are allowed to listen to. It is beyond outrageous and smells of control obsession at best.

On the quality of news front, NBC, that paragon of factual news reporting is planning to pay for a hard news story. The plan is to pay Paris Hilton one million dollars for a hard news story! I enjoy the degenerate decadence of Hollywood as much as the next girl, but put it on Access Hollywood without a fee, not on what will it be? Meet the Press for a million dollars? Main Stream news is slanted, mostly warped opinion and now an actual joke. 

Ah....good to be back. I came to check up on the latest Inland Empire news and ended up being sucked back into the political board like a former crack addict.

I also think Susan nailed something really important in her last paragraph, but I see things a little differently. Much of our government legislation is bought via contributions from special interest groups and large corporations. And who owns the giant media outlets? Big corporations, the same ones who own CNN, FOX, etc are handing out huge campaign contributions in Washington. I think the real problems starts there and neither party is willing to stop accepting these kinds of contributions. I don't think either party has the right to cry biased news coverage when our government won't even take the first steps necessary to end the big contributions that really matter. I think pointing the finger at a $500 contribution from a field reporter is small potatoes in the grand scheme of things, drawing attention away from the real problem I think.

I won't deny that there is bias both ways in the media, even reporters are human. You are never going to have a strctly non-biased reporter until you throw robots in front of the camera. Just like we'll never have a president that truely puts the nation first or will try and unify the country like they always say they will do. (I pledge to work with members of the other party, blah...blah...blah....) Everyone has an agenda.

Oh yeah, Susan I agree about the commentator thing not being actual news and all. I actually used to watch Rush's T.V. show back in the mid nineties so I know he can dish it out. I remember when he would show pictures of Chelsea Clinton and comment on how hideously ugly she was. I can certainly understand why some people might consider him a fat asshole; the big guy certainly should be able to take it.

R_Flagg

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

They were talking about this on local talk yesterday, I believe, (about campaign monies) and one guy called up and suggested that let coporations and individuals donate as much as they want, but who is doing it cannot be revealed to the politician. Not sure how well that would work but it's an interesting idea.

I'm not worried as much about corporation donations, as I am worried about these PAC groups. Once you start researching you runs each, it always points to the same individuals running many of them.

Jordan .

Um, you might have been too fast on that one Jordan!  "The other day" my behind!  Inhofe now admits "the other day" was 3 years ago, and Clinton and Boxer deny.  Since Inhofe has lost credibility that now makes this particluar charge a non-issue.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,285933,00.html

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

Jordan .

"Ethics Column" written by Moveon.com Adherent.  What a phony sleaze this hack is:

A newspaper in Washington announced it was dumping " The Ethicist" column of New York Times propagandist Randy Cohen, after he was caught forking over cash to the far left Moveon.com organization. Cohen's nationally syndicated column was told to ' Moveon' as the Spokesman Review learned of Cohen's payoff.

" It would be hypocritical of us to run an ethics column by a "journalist" in violation of our own ethics policy." said the Spokane Review.

Cohen first lied and said his contribution was on a par with a reporter donating to the Boy Scouts.      He then , tried to hang on by saying he would not do it in the future. His ethical ploy did not work. He is one of three New York Times staffers identified in the recent donation's report.

from N Y Post 6/23/2007 page 2

I read that Randy Cohen column and agree with him only about 50% of the time.  Gay scout leaders and the homophobic Boy Scouts = his passionate issue.

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

Well D, there is a serious point here. That being the overwhelming liberal bias in alot of the US in certain influencial areas.  If a section of lowly AM radio and that lone gun Fox news could be silenced it would be even more difficult.

People disagree on an approach to government. Me : the less the better. I don't think my neighbor is against me beyond that political area- if they are even aware of it. The gal down the street is not going to set my home on fire and if I was prostrate ( not prostate : ) on the lawn that neighbor would I'm sure call in an EMS call. And I would act the same. So, in terms of living my (our) lives no one is against me. I know I'm not against anyone here. I think their politics are skewed , but that doesn't amount to much if anything in our daily lives.

Fairness Doctorine:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286442,00.html

WALLACE: Let me bring in Senator Feinstein.

Oklahoma Senator Inhofe says that he overheard Barbara Boxer and Hillary Clinton three years ago complaining about talk radio and saying that there should be a legislative fix. Both of them deny it ever happened.

But let me ask you about yourself. Do you have a problem with talk radio, and would you consider reviving the fairness doctrine, which would require broadcasters to put on opposing points of view?

FEINSTEIN: Well, in my view, talk radio tends to be one-sided. It also tends to be dwelling in hyperbole. It's explosive. It pushes people to, I think, extreme views without a lot of information. (Jordan's Note - like global warming debate?)

This is a very complicated bill. It's seven titles. Most people don't know what's in this bill. Therefore, to just have one or two things dramatized and taken out of context, such as the word amnesty — we have a silent amnesty right now, but nobody goes into that. Nobody goes into the flaws of our broken system.

This bill fixes those flaws. Do I think there should be an opportunity on talk radio to present that point of view? Yes, I do, particularly about the critical issues of the day. (Jordan's Note - uh, almost everyone BUT Rush does interviews with other people to get the "other side.")

WALLACE: So would you revive the fairness doctrine?

FEINSTEIN: Well, I'm looking at it, as a matter of fact, Chris, because I think there ought to be an opportunity to present the other side. And unfortunately, talk radio is overwhelmingly one way.

WALLACE: But the argument would be it's the marketplace, and if liberals want to put on their own talk radio, they can put it on. At this point, they don't seem to be able to find much of a market.

FEINSTEIN: Well, apparently, there have been problems. It is growing. But I do believe in fairness. I remember when there was a fairness doctrine, and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people. (Jordan's Note - isn't that the job of hard news crews, like newspapers, TV news, etc. and not commentary like talk radio? Maybe if the MSM were more serious about correct reporting, people would be more knowlegable)

Jordan .

I hope you never run into bystander apathy!

If it helps, I would throw water on you if you were on fire R, I'd call an abulance too (I hope you have health insurance)!  I agree with you about where politics places in terms of people.  That's why the tired cliche of "we like Americans, we just don't like your president" holds truth.

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"

Yes, it certainly is a tired old cliche.

Yawn.

...and it often is the case that somewhere in the world there is someone who holds this conviction near and dear to his heart as he sets ablaze an effigy of the current American president, whomever it may be, and the American flag while actually "liking" individual Americans he has met.

...and if we go back to the Clinton administration we find there were protests outside of the US that equated him with Hitler.

...and if we go back to any earlier presidency since WWII, we'll find times and places around the world where an inordinate amount of wrath and denigration was heaped upon GHWBush, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, JFK, Eisenhower and certainly Truman.

Granted it appears true that more people dislike President Bush at this time both abroad and at home.

Granted there are more outlets for sharing this dislike with a no borders Internet, 24 hour news and cellphone cameras promulgating clips of any event anywhere.

Maybe if there had never been a war in Iraq there would have been fewer who disliked Bush...

...but stilll...

...he would have remained...

A. A Texan

B. A self-professed Christian who openly admitted Jesus Christ was his favorite philosopher

C. He didn't see action in the Vietnam War

D. His father before him was a President of the US

E. He was an alcoholic

F. He didn't run the Texas Rangers well

G. He mangles the English language

H. His face appears to smirk when he smiles

I. Etc.

...but...

...if you employ the logic of the tired cliche...

    I like Americans, I just don't like the president.  

...then you would have to concede that "liking" Americans, while disliking the US president, means they also "like" those Americans who support the president. And this puts one in a bind, doesn't it? Especially if you are the type of foreigner who equates the US president with a terrorist or the second coming of Adolf Hitler. Although it's a little lower on a sliding scale of culpability, those American supporters of Bushitler must share some of the blame.

So...

A new peppier cliche might be...

I like some Americans but not those who voted for Bush, because I don't like Bush.

The non-American might hasten to add that they also dislike those fellow citizens of country _______ who DO like Bush. Or whichever president it is. Kinda like the Irish really loved JFK. Maybe they didn't like those Americans who voted for Nixon though. And so on.

But then, who expects logic from a tired cliche?

Fact is America is in the international spotlight more so than any other country.

Fact is the US will always be (as long as the US is the sole super power) held to the highest -- some may same unreasonably high -- standards and will always be under microscopic international scrutiny.

Fact is there will never be a time when internationalists can safely say, "I love the US President and I love the people of the USA."

Fact is you can please some of the people some of the time...etc. cliche...

And I for one can live with the facts of life.

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

What Booth said (okay, maybe not to that extreme).

Wow Susan, when you go that far into a cliche it surely doesn't make sense anymore.  I like things simpler sometimes though.  Yes, I can like people who voted for Bush.  Why even here in my own neighborhood I like people who vote conservative!  Yes, I don't like everybody, I don't like all Canadians for instance, I could make a list right now if I wanted to but I still believe in the gist of what I said.  By and large I think the US is a pretty darned good country with some pretty darned good people in it.  Politics really can be put aside sometimes with neighbors.

"We cannot allow a mine shaft gap"