Heh, Pew researchers say media dominated by liberals

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » May 24, 2004, 10:49 am

I suspected as such.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp ... 1000517184

It takes a certain kind of person to be a journalist. (I say that with no negativity)

Truant · Post by **Truant** » May 24, 2004, 11:04 am

your title is misleading there skippy.

The study doesn't show that the media is dominated by liberal media outlets...it says that people who work in the media (and selected for this study) are predominantly liberal.

You have to remember, there are some journalists, no matter what their political affiliation may be, still produce as close to unbiased journalism as is humanly possible.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 24, 2004, 11:25 am

Shocking!

It is about as shocking as a survey coming out saying "Hockey players found to be mostly white."

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » May 24, 2004, 11:50 am

Journalism isn't a vocation based solely on financial self-interest or opportunities to fuck the poor over for a few bucks so it's hardly likely to attract your average conservative

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 24, 2004, 2:58 pm

the title as well as the article are misleading.

it says liberals "dominate".

but this is a survey of "newsroom employees".

that means the writers, the researchers, etc. And they certainly effect news. But they all report to editors. And editors all report to news executives. And news executives all report to corporate executives who all report to the Board of Trustees, who report to the stockholders.

in otherwords labelling "the media" as politically biased is a very antiquated way of thinking about things. It is also overly simplistic. As i have explained before the principal 'bias' of mainstream news outlets is making money.

Additionally, the majority of editors and news executives describe their personal politics as "conservative". So that being said, the newsroom guy, the editor, and the executive all are professionally obligated to eliminate (or at least reduce for the most part) their personal political leanings from their work.

Let's look at some high profile cases of Corporate decisions effecting media output lately.

1. Disney declines to distribute Michael Moore's movie
2. Clear Channel drops Howard Stern from its stations.
3. Viacom drops the Reagan miniseries from CBS.

now there are many reasons , some of them legitimate business reasons, contributing to those decisions.

but in the simpleminded world where "The Media" is "biased to the left", none of those 3 things would have happened.

Again the owners of the following companies:

NBC, MSNBC (#2 news website) -> Genereal Electric (very conservative corporate culture...i mean conservative in the general meaning of the word not to equal Republican)

CBS -> Viacom

ABC -> Disney

CNN -> Time Warner

Fox -> Newscorp

its about $

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » May 24, 2004, 3:04 pm

By the way read the real aritcle from Pew if you want to know about it

http://people-press.org/reports/display ... portID=214

By more than three-to-one, national and local journalists believe it is a bad thing if some news organizations have a "decidedly ideological point of view" in their news coverage. And more than four-in-ten in both groups say journalists too often let their ideological views show in their reporting. This view is held more by self-described conservative journalists than moderates or liberals.

At the same time, the single news outlet that strikes most journalists as taking a particular ideological stance either liberal or conservative is Fox News Channel. Among national journalists, more than twice as many could identify a daily news organization that they think is "especially conservative in its coverage" than one they believe is "especially liberal" (82% vs. 38%). And Fox has by far the highest profile as a conservative news organization; it was cited unprompted by 69% of national journalists. The New York Times was most often mentioned as the national daily news organization that takes a decidedly liberal point of view, but only by 20% of the national sample.

here is an interesting excerpt =)

i personally think that the press at large has given the White House a lot of leeway considering some of the events that have transpired over the last year. We never heard much about GW's usage of blow. we would have parmesan cheese droppeing from C-5s from the sky if Bill CLinton had ever done coke

masteen · Post by **masteen** » May 24, 2004, 3:28 pm

Voronwe has been sent by his corporate overlords to obfuscate the truth!

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 24, 2004, 4:42 pm

Voro is nuckin futz as usual.

In a liberal media those 3 things wouldn't happen? Seriously, Voro, you can't believe that.

In a liberal media would they bash President Bush every day. Make him look stupid every day? Drag out these prisoner pictures nad make it the focal point, every day? Barely talk about the Berg thing, except to make it another example of why we shouldn't be there? Pound down our throats the notion that the government was to blame because we didn't hold him in our prison for indemnity? Show only our failures and only briefly touch on our successes.

Where are the long soft mushy stories on the news about one of our soldiers and the connection made between him and a little Iraqi boy and his family and their improvements as a result of their recent freedom? All we see is the story after story of the bombs that maybe blew up a wedding. Negative, negative, negative. No positives.

If it were a Democrat president, there would be little to no mention of negatives and many positive stories. Clinton was on the nice end of the media in his little conflicts in Bosnia etc. Even during his sex scandals that the Republicans forced into the light, they often reported it, but in a neutral manner. Always in a light that made the Republicans look bad.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » May 24, 2004, 4:51 pm

He was on the nice end of the media during Bosnia, because he didn't defy the UN. Can you say the same about GW? The media is not liberal nor conservative, they are both. They constantly critisize the actions of any president be him Demo or Rep. Given that GW has had arguably one of the hardest terms that any president has faced to date, his actions as of late have been questionable, and the press has brought a lot of stuff to light. Am I saying that is all non-biased? Hell fucking no, but it is not all liberal.

Why the fuck would anyone care about some soldier making friends with a boy while his buddies are taking pictures of tortured prisoners? You tell me what grabs more ratings and sells more copies.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 24, 2004, 4:56 pm

Donald Trump seems to be doing well selling his success. So obviously success can sell as well as failure.

Don't be so content to accept failure.

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » May 24, 2004, 5:07 pm

yay another moronic rightie whining about clinton every time they bring up the "liberal media"

clinton was in the news a lot more than Bush has been, because of all the scandals the right invented out of nowhere. bush makes it on the news every time he says or does something stupid. they don't have to pick on him; it just looks like they do because he is a fucking dumbass. no wonder you like him so much.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » May 24, 2004, 5:23 pm

the media doesnt swing either way
it comes down to this, negative sells, people pay more attention to negative news and advertisers love that

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » May 24, 2004, 5:35 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Donald Trump seems to be doing well selling his success. So obviously success can sell as well as failure.

Don't be so content to accept failure.

you are comparing cnn/newspapers/magazines/foxnews et al to a fucking tv show on nbc? you really are fucking retarded.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 24, 2004, 5:44 pm

Zamtuk wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Donald Trump seems to be doing well selling his success. So obviously success can sell as well as failure.

Don't be so content to accept failure.
you are comparing cnn/newspapers/magazines/foxnews et al to a fucking tv show on nbc? you really are fucking retarded.

Just because you are unable to understand an analogy doesn't mean I am retarded. But, you need to bash others to feel better about yourself, so I forgive you.

Arilain · Post by **Arilain** » May 24, 2004, 5:51 pm

The US has UN approval to go into Bosnia?

Clinton was a shady character even when he was an Attorney General in Arkansas. To his credit he has enough charisma to make the average person overlook the obvious and have them blame the republicans. In the end even the media has normal human beings that are not immune to a chrasimatic leader. Clinton went out of his way to make friends with the media also (good for propaganda) where as Bush has treated the media as a seperate institution entirely.

The media itself is as corrupt as the politicians really. They realise that showing or talking about Berg getting his head sawed off is not good for ratings, however showing Arabs being humiliated is good for ratings. It's a problem with our society that we want to see the bad things and do not care much about the good things that are happening.

If you want change start at home.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » May 24, 2004, 6:30 pm

I'm a little sore that the broadcast media seldom focuses on the good stories coming from Iraq.

Cartalas · Post by **Cartalas** » May 24, 2004, 6:57 pm

kyoukan wrote:yay another moronic rightie whining about clinton every time they bring up the "liberal media"

clinton was in the news a lot more than Bush has been, because of all the scandals the right invented out of nowhere. bush makes it on the news every time he says or does something stupid. they don't have to pick on him; it just looks like they do because he is a fucking dumbass. no wonder you like him so much.

So it was a mythical Blow Job?

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » May 24, 2004, 7:06 pm

heh, i seem to notice a pattern between those who label themselves "conservative"

When ever a conservative fucks up, they always try to blame someone else.

Iraq is a total fucking falure, thats almost indesputable. Yet Bush doesnt have the balls to take credit for his mistake, so he blames the "bad intellegence" or the "liberal media"
Things arnt going your way, Bush is a fucking facioust moron, hes creating a 2nd vietnam...and of course the only defense you have left is to blame the messenger or the "liberal media"

Xzion · Post by **Xzion** » May 24, 2004, 7:09 pm

Cartalas wrote:
kyoukan wrote:yay another moronic rightie whining about clinton every time they bring up the "liberal media"

clinton was in the news a lot more than Bush has been, because of all the scandals the right invented out of nowhere. bush makes it on the news every time he says or does something stupid. they don't have to pick on him; it just looks like they do because he is a fucking dumbass. no wonder you like him so much.
So it was a mythical Blow Job?

How does it effect you if some guy gets a blowjob?
How does it effect you if two gay people chose to get married in the privacy of there own personal lives?

What really has an effect on EVERYONE is a deceptive president lieing about a war that will end up costing thousands of american lives.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 24, 2004, 8:03 pm

Xzion wrote:heh, i seem to notice a pattern between those who label themselves "conservative"

When ever a conservative fucks up, they always try to blame someone else.

Iraq is a total fucking falure, thats almost indesputable. Yet Bush doesnt have the balls to take credit for his mistake, so he blames the "bad intellegence" or the "liberal media"
Things arnt going your way, Bush is a fucking facioust moron, hes creating a 2nd vietnam...and of course the only defense you have left is to blame the messenger or the "liberal media"

Ummm yeah, wrong again. Bush doesn't believe Iraq is a failure and neither blamed faulty intelligence nor the liuberal media. Iraq is a success so far and will only be deemed a true success or failure a decade or more from now.

Only against a republican president couldn't the notion of giving oppressed people their freedom be a such a horrible fucking concept. Only democrats are allowed to do such things, how dare those fucking republicans.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » May 24, 2004, 8:11 pm

So who's next? Iran, N Korea, China, Syria, Saudi Arabia? Each one of them has a worse human rights record than Iraq.

That wasn't the reason we invaded Iraq, and you either know it or are too stupid to recognize it (but that's no surprise).

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 24, 2004, 8:19 pm

Vetiria wrote:So who's next? Iran, N Korea, China, Syria, Saudi Arabia? Each one of them has a worse human rights record than Iraq.

That wasn't the reason we invaded Iraq, and you either know it or are too stupid to recognize it (but that's no surprise).

First of all, how do you know? Can there be only one reason we went there? In your world do people only think one thing at a time? Can't it be that Bush wanted revenge on Saddam for his father, take the oil, free the people of iraq, stop future terrorists from getting WOMD from the supplies the UN said Saddam still had? No, not in your world. Bush is bad and his whole administration. They only think of evil. They don't have any good reasons for anything they do. Jackass.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » May 24, 2004, 8:32 pm

When was Powell's speech to the UN about human rights violations? Oh wait, there wasn't one. Just one presentation about detailed locations of WMD's and mobile weapons labs (that turned out to be exaggerations and outright lies). We didn't start hearing about human rights violations until the administration realized that WMD wasn't going to be enough to justify an invasion.

You still didn't answer my question though. Which country is next?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 24, 2004, 8:35 pm

Vetiria wrote:When was Powell's speech to the UN about human rights violations? Oh wait, there wasn't one. Just one presentation about detailed locations of WMD's and mobile weapons labs (that turned out to be exaggerations and outright lies). We didn't start hearing about human rights violations until the administration realized that WMD wasn't going to be enough to justify an invasion.

You still didn't answer my question though. Which country is next?

WMD's was the selling point. Worked didn't it. Who's next? How the fuck should I know. I'm not a top level government official....and neither are you.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » May 24, 2004, 8:40 pm

Have you been living in a cave for the past year and a half? No, WMD did not work as a selling point. I just said that in my post you fucking dult.

And you don't seem to understand my rhetorical question. I should have known you wouldn't have.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » May 24, 2004, 9:05 pm

Can't it be that Bush wanted revenge on Saddam for his father, take the oil, free the people of iraq, stop future terrorists from getting WOMD from the supplies the UN said Saddam still had?

Thats pretty passionate, I wonder why he didn't talk about it in the 2000 campaigne. I wonder why.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 24, 2004, 9:47 pm

It wasn't an issue in his 2000 campaign.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » May 24, 2004, 10:07 pm

No, but they were planning it before the elections.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 24, 2004, 10:18 pm

I don't know that to be true.

Wonko Wenusberg · Post by **Wonko Wenusberg** » May 24, 2004, 10:43 pm

There is much we don't know, but to think Operation FREEDOM was a spurr of the moment and directly linked to WMDs and 9/11 is little naive imho.

Zamtuk · Post by **Zamtuk** » May 24, 2004, 11:38 pm

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Zamtuk wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Donald Trump seems to be doing well selling his success. So obviously success can sell as well as failure.

Don't be so content to accept failure.
you are comparing cnn/newspapers/magazines/foxnews et al to a fucking tv show on nbc? you really are fucking retarded.
Just because you are unable to understand an analogy doesn't mean I am retarded. But, you need to bash others to feel better about yourself, so I forgive you.

ok, fair enough, i see what you are trying to get at, but you failed. people don't watch The Apprentice to see how rich and successful Trump is, they watch it to see the people FAIL. Can tell me the catch phrase from that show that everyone knows and tell me how that is positive or sells as success?

Siji · Post by **Siji** » May 25, 2004, 3:18 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Make him look stupid every day?

Bush does this just fine on his own. Because after all, he is a fucking idiot.

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » May 25, 2004, 10:58 am

Xzion wrote:Iraq is a total fucking falure, thats almost indesputable.

Compared to what? Iraq with Saddam firmly in action doing his thing?

That's a stretch.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » May 25, 2004, 5:27 pm

i could be mistaken, but i don't remember bush sr. getting much bad press about the first gulf war. i do, however, remember seeing eleventy billion pictures of that dress monica had clinton's man juice on.

it seems the more scandalous and negative the story, the better it sells. if clinton and/or bush had done something fantabulous in his/their younger days and the press caught wind of it, i'd wager that it wouldn't get a lick of air time.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 25, 2004, 5:35 pm

Sunserae wrote:i could be mistaken, but i don't remember bush sr. getting much bad press about the first gulf war. i do, however, remember seeing eleventy billion pictures of that dress monica had clinton's man juice on.

it seems the more scandalous and negative the story, the better it sells. if clinton and/or bush had done something fantabulous in his/their younger days and the press caught wind of it, i'd wager that it wouldn't get a lick of air time.

You don't watch TV very often do you?

Bush and the cocaine thing in college on TV every day ring a bell?

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » May 25, 2004, 5:48 pm

read it again, stupid. you just agreed with me.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 25, 2004, 5:55 pm

Sunserae wrote:read it again, stupid. you just agreed with me.

Indeed, I am stupid. My apologies. hehe

Markulas · Post by **Markulas** » May 25, 2004, 6:36 pm

It seems lately everyone is bitching about the media not covering the Berg thing. I believe they aren't covering it because you don't expect prisoner abuse from US, and you fucking expect the horrible shit from the terrorists. It doesn't mean the terrorists have the right to do this at all, but I think we shouldn't try to go down into a terrorist's level at all.

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » May 25, 2004, 6:57 pm

Heh, [you] is completely biased, and a known liar!

-=Lohrno

Dregor Thule · Post by **Dregor Thule** » May 25, 2004, 7:32 pm

Your trickeries with code are unoriginal and lacking in the

department!

Lohrno · Post by **Lohrno** » May 25, 2004, 7:33 pm

Dregor Thule wrote:Your trickeries with code are unoriginal and lacking in the department!

Sorry, just had to try it once.

-=Lohrno

Forthe · Post by **Forthe** » May 25, 2004, 7:35 pm

Lohrno wrote:Heh, [you] is completely biased, and a known liar!

-=Lohrno

Edit: pfft got me

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » May 25, 2004, 7:50 pm

Heh, Wulfran is completely biased, and a known liar!

I am! Well completely biased...

Kylere · Post by **Kylere** » May 26, 2004, 11:23 am

Of course the liberal media in this country does not talk about people doing coke, they do not want the punishments to get any worse for when they get busted.

Since none of them are getting laid however...

Lalanae · Post by **Lalanae** » May 26, 2004, 11:29 am

Kylere wrote:Of course the liberal media in this country does not talk about people doing coke, they do not want the punishments to get any worse for when they get busted.

Since none of them are getting laid however...

huh? who are you talking to?

and what kind of high school comment is "none of them are getting laid?" I think you just reached new heights of logic!

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » May 26, 2004, 1:08 pm

Heh, Kaldaur is completely biased, and a known liar!

-=Lohrno

Huh? How did I get dragged into this?

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » May 26, 2004, 2:01 pm

Kal,

It's some kind of coding trick where whomever is viewing the page sees their own name.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » May 26, 2004, 8:00 pm

Heh, Aaeamdar is completely biased, and a known liar!

-=Lohrno

Ack, what did I do? !

Kaldaur · Post by **Kaldaur** » May 27, 2004, 4:27 pm

Hehe, I just figured it out, reading other threads as well. Thanks Midnyte for the heads up.