For the last time - Proof of Mainstream Media Bias

fossten

Dedicated LVC Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
12,460
Reaction score
6
Location
Louisville
List of journalists taking sides

And their explanations, from ‘Yikes!’ to ‘They’re all in somebody’s pocket’
By Bill Dedman
Investigative reporter
MSNBC
Updated: 12:51 p.m. ET June 21, 2007

The following 144 journalists made campaign contributions from 2004 through the first quarter of 2007, according to Federal Election Commission records studied by MSNBC.com.

[By the way, the ratio is 9 to 1 Democrat, in case you don't want to count]

[snip] mod edit: too damn long.


The rest of the list is found here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So what? It's a free country, if people in the media wish to support a presidential candidate it's no different than if you or I chose to support a presidential candidate.
 
So what? It's a free country, if people in the media wish to support a presidential candidate it's no different than if you or I chose to support a presidential candidate.

The problem with your statement is that it isn't the point. The media presents themselves as the vaunted "Fourth Estate." They are the elites, the intellectuals, the observers, the so-called unbiased reporters of goings-on. The problem is that they are biased and their reporting is wrapped around an agenda. This thread is merely proof of their bias toward Democrats.

Are they free to support whomever they choose? Of course they are. This isn't about being free to support who they want to. It's about being honest with the American public (their supposed clients) about what their agenda is. And they AREN'T honest about it. They feign objectivity while clearly picking sides, most often the side of the Democrats and/or liberals.
 
I didn't make a count, but I see a whole lot of film critics, food writers, and whatnot. In other words, not too many of them, if any, write about politics or even "hard" news. And even if they did, the only way you can prove any bias is by their writing.

With that said, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of reporters were Democrats. The question is, is it an evil conspiracy or is it because people who lean left tend to go into reporting? I'd guess it's the latter. Liberals, for lack of a better word, are more likely to question authority, hence reporting is a logical career to get into. Conservatives tend to show reverence to authority (law and order and all that). Witness the laughable softball questions that Neil Cavuto threw at Bush in his recent interview. Is that responsible reporting? I think not. And you guys have very selective memory of how the press treated Clinton in the Monica days. It was non-stop 24/7 coverage.
 
If you were used to being the hammer, but suddenly found yourself in the position of being the nail, wouldn't you cry too TommyB?
 
I didn't make a count, but I see a whole lot of film critics, food writers, and whatnot. In other words, not too many of them, if any, write about politics or even "hard" news. And even if they did, the only way you can prove any bias is by their writing.

With that said, I wouldn't be surprised if the majority of reporters were Democrats. The question is, is it an evil conspiracy or is it because people who lean left tend to go into reporting? I'd guess it's the latter. Liberals, for lack of a better word, are more likely to question authority, hence reporting is a logical career to get into. Conservatives tend to show reverence to authority (law and order and all that). Witness the laughable softball questions that Neil Cavuto threw at Bush in his recent interview. Is that responsible reporting? I think not. And you guys have very selective memory of how the press treated Clinton in the Monica days. It was non-stop 24/7 coverage.

Well, as usual, you have a very skewed and one-sided view of things. The Monica thing the only evidence you can ever remember? Because that's all you ever bring up when somebody mentions bias in the news. Nevertheless, if I recall correctly (and I do), in the 90s it was KEN STARR who was vilified and demonized, called a sex pervert by Clinton Inc. AND by the DriveBy Media. Clinton couldn't get out of his own way with Monica; the media COULDN'T ignore that. But they did provide plenty of cover for him.

You ever see Hillary get asked tough questions by the media? Nope. Did you see Clinton blow up when asked an innocuous question by Chris Wallace on Fox News? Remember what he said? He said, "I'm being asked this question on Fox News..." In other words, he knew if he was on any other network HE WOULD GET NOTHING BUT SOFTBALLS. So what have you proved by your statement about Fox? That they treat the President with more respect than the lowlifes in the Washington Press Corps who give talking point statements disguised as looooong questions? Why should I have a problem with that? It's called balance, something your DriveBy Media has none of.

Your DriveBys don't know the first thing about responsible reporting. They tell a lie a week to the American people and they parrot Democrat talking points. Hell, you even acknowledge that they are typically liberal when they go into journalism. You're not exactly bowling me over with amazing points here.
 
More bias...

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003625825

Rove Incident Causes Editor to Declare: Keep Political Views to Yourself

By E&P Staff

Published: August 15, 2007 10:15 AM ET

NEW YORK No matter what you think of Karl Rove -- or anyone else in politics -- please keep it to yourself, or at least falrly quiet. That was the message in a note sent to staffers at the Seattle Times by Executive Editor Dave Boardman after what he called "an awkward moment at yesterday's news meeting."

What happened? According to Boardman in the latest email installment of what he calls "Dave's Raves" it was this: "When word came in of Karl Rove's resignation, several people in the meeting started cheering. That sort of expression is simply not appropriate for a newsroom....As we head into a major political year, now's a good time to remember: Please keep your personal politics to yourself."

The incident was described in a blog by chief political reporter David Postman. He comments: "I wasn't there, but I've talked to several people who were. It was only a couple of people who cheered and they, thankfully, are not among the people who get a say in news play. But obviously news staff shouldn't be cheering or jeering the day's news, particularly as Boardman points out, 'when we have an outside guest in the room.'Yep, you need to make sure no non-liberals are in the room when you do.

"Jokes get made in newsrooms, of course — even what you would call gallows humor. And Boardman wrote that he was 'all for equal-opportunity joking at both parties' expense.' But he was clearly ticked off by yesterday's display."
 
He comments: "I wasn't there, but I've talked to several people who were. It was only a couple of people who cheered and they, thankfully, are not among the people who get a say in news play.
Probably more movie critics and food columnists. :D
 
Probably more movie critics and food columnists. :D

Still living in denial, eh? Well read this:

JOE SCARBOROUGH: There was a story out of Seattle, and the reason I love it is that it's transparency in the news. You have an editor who was actually outing his own people. The Seattle Times newsroom broke into applause when Karl Rove resigned. And of course that's bad. What I like about it is that the editor actually wrote about it and went in and told the people in the newsroom that was unacceptable.

And I've got to say, my first night here at MSNBC was the President's State of the Union address in 2003, and I was shocked because there were actually people in the newsroom that were booing the president actually from the beginning to the end. And I actually talked to [NBC/MSNBC executive] Phil Griffin about it, and he said "how was it last night?" Because he was the one that called me out of the Ace Hardware store, got my vest on. He said "how was it last night?" I said "well, it's OK, I understand it's a little bit different up here than it is down in northwest Florida, but you had people in the newsroom actively booing the President of the United States." Phil turned red very quickly. That didn't happen again.
 
A quick note about those "movie critics and food reviewers."

Why are you dismissing them? You're very observation reinforces Fosstens point. That political bias IS NOT just limited to the editorial page, it's creeps into everything in the media. Media critics often have agendas that influence what they write. Have you ever read the St. Pete Times or NY Times? Do you honestly think political and social commentary is limited to any one section?

And it's that very kind of "bias" that angers conservatives. It's on every page, with no attempt, and really no chance, for balance.

The movie reviewer makes attacks on Bush in his commentary. The TV reviewer makes similar comments. They both are rabidly supporting the propaganda made by Michael Moore. Movies like the Passion of the Christs are hateful and anti-semitic though.

And eventually, these reviewers DO advance through their careers and find themselves working harder news.

And there's nothing wrong with having liberal journalists, or conservative journalists. But you can't say that when conservatives (not Republicans) tend to outnumber liberals in this country it isn't a little strange when 9 out of 10 of the people in the news are liberal.
 
MSNBC Newsroom Booed Bush State of the Union
By Mark Finkelstein | August 16, 2007 - 06:36 ET
UPDATE: Joe and Mika discuss this NB item. See below.

Joe Scarborough has pulled back the curtain on the liberal bias at MSNBC, describing an incident in which people in its newsroom ceaselessly booed President Bush during a State of the Union address.

The revelation came on "Morning Joe" today at 6:02 A.M. EDT. Joe was discussing a recent episode at the Seattle Times in which reporters and editors cheered the news that Karl Rove had resigned. Scarborough applauded Seattle Times Executive Editor Dave Boardman for issuing a memorandum reproving his colleagues. For more, read NB items by Brent Baker and Ken Shepherd.

Joe went on to describe a similar incident at MSNBC.

View video here . Note: that's newsreader Mika Brzezinksi heard murmuring in assent, though one has to wonder just how thrilled she was by Joe's candor in outing her fellow MSNBC liberals.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: There was a story out of Seattle, and the reason I love it is that it's transparency in the news. You have an editor who was actually outing his own people. The Seattle Times newsroom broke into applause when Karl Rove resigned. And of course that's bad. What I like about it is that the editor actually wrote about it and went in and told the people in the newsroom that was unacceptable.

And I've got to say, my first night here at MSNBC was the President's State of the Union address in 2003, and I was shocked because there were actually people in the newsroom that were booing the president actually from the beginning to the end. And I actually talked to [NBC/MSNBC executive] Phil Griffin about it, and he said "how was it last night?" Because he was the one that called me out of the Ace Hardware store, got my vest on. He said "how was it last night?" I said "well, it's OK, I understand it's a little bit different up here than it is down in northwest Florida, but you had people in the newsroom actively booing the President of the United States. Phil turned red very quickly. That didn't happen again.

Great news: the MSNBC newsroom no longer actively boos the President! But did Griffin replace any of the offenders and bring in professionals, or is MSNBC still staffed by people who simply do their booing on the inside -- and in the news choices they make?

UPDATE, 8-16: At 6:48 A.M. EDT Joe and Mika discussed this item.

SCARBOROUGH: Chris [MJ producer Chris Licht] told me something in my ear during break, that we talked at 6:02 about the Seattle Times and back in 2003, back in 2003, the newsroom at MSNBC booing George Bush . . .

BRZEZINKSI: Some people, yeah [Mika wanting to make clear it wasn't unanimous.]

SCARBOROUGH: A lot of the people that were actually charged with the coverage.

BRZEZINKSI: Oh dear!

SCARBOROUGH: Yeah, that's bad. And I talked about how Phil Griffin found out, got very angry,

BRZEZINKSI: Right, as he should.

SCARBOROUGH: And cleaned that up. That never happened again.

BRZEZINKSI: N-o-o-o.

SCARBOROUGH: And this whole place has changed an awful lot since then. But NewsBusters, already has a story at like 6:30.

BRZEZINKSI: Oh my God!

SCARBOROUGH: Ruthless efficiency!

BRZEZINKSI: I try not to look there. They don't like me.

SCARBOROUGH: They said I pulled back the curtain. You know what? Sunlight's the best disinfectant.

BRZEZINKSI: Darn right.

I don't dislike Mika. I just wish she would admit the obvious: that she is a liberal Democrat who occasionally lets her bias show, and stop hiding behind the flimsy cover, as proof of her objectivity, of having a Republican brother.

Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
 
Thank God for sites like Newsbusters. They may very well help save this country.
 
Calabrio beat me to it.

Let's hear the chirping from our liberal friends here. You know the ones. The ones in denial about the liberal mainstream press.

If these guys could only buy a clue, we could have harmony in this Country and maybe save this Country from turning into Rome.

Liberals (democrats) just don't get it. They have drank the kookaid and taken the blue pill. How sad to go thru life totally clueless and be a pawn of the liberal elite.:(
 
It's Not Just Scott Beauchamp
By Randall Hoven

http://www.americanthinker.com/prin...com/2007/08/its_not_just_scott_beauchamp.html

"Matt Drudge's role in the Monica Lewinski scandal] strikes me as a new and graphic power of the Internet to influence mainstream journalism. And I suspect that over the next couple of years that impact will grow to the point where it will damage journalism's ability to do its job professionally, to check out information before publication, to be mindful of the necessity to publish and broadcast reliable, substantiated information." -- Marvin Kalb in 1998

Scott Beauchamp was the last straw. I realized that I need a scorecard to keep track of all the fallen journalists, journalistic mistakes and major and minor screw-ups in the media. I couldn't find one already made, although Wikipedia came close, so I started my own. I apologize if there is a good list already out there, but I looked and could not find.


Offenses include lying and fabricating, doctoring photos, plagiarism, conflicts of interest, falling for hoaxes, and overt bias. Some are hilarious, such as an action figure doll being mistaken for a real soldier. Some are silly, such as reporting on a baseball game watched on TV. Some are more serious.


I leave it to you to judge whether the internet damaged "journalism's ability to do its job professionally", as Marvin Kalb accuses, or if the internet has in fact helped expose an already damaged "profession".


I doubt if my list is comprehensive, but I think it's a good start. So that I'm not accused of plagiarism myself, I would like to give credit to Wikipedia for many of the entries on this list. And all the information below can be found with a little internet searching; I just could not find it all in one place. I do give at least one source for each item, embedded in the text.

Mitch Albom, Detroit Free Press (2005). Lying/fabricating. In his sports column, he described alumni players at a basketball game who were not even there.

Stephen Ambrose, historian/author (2002). Plagiarism. He was almost a book "factory", writing eight books in five years. But that apparently came easier when parts were copied from other books, without attribution.

Associated Press (AP) (2005). Fell for hoax and phony photo. The AP ran a story, with a photo, about a soldier held hostage in Iraq. The photo turned out to be that of an action figure doll; there was no such soldier.

Mike Barnicle, Boston Globe (1998). Lying/fabricating and plagiarism. Totally made up stories, including one about a black kid and a white kid with cancer. Also used quotes from George Carlin as his own. Fired from the Boston Globe.

Maria Bartiromo, CNBC (2007). Conflict of interest. She dated a Citicorp executive and received special treatment from him, and also owned stock in Citicorp while doing financial reporting for CNBC, including reporting on Citicorp.

Scott Beauchamp, The New Republic (2007). Lying. TNR hired this U.S. Army private and husband of one of its own reporters to write first-hand accounts from Iraq. One of his accounts, supposedly demonstrating the dehumanizing effects of the Iraq war on him and fellow soldiers, occurred in Kuwait before Beauchamp even entered Iraq. Other parts of his writing are likely false, and if not, constitute military crimes on his part. In fact, his anonymous writing from a war zone is likely against military rules. This story is currently unfolding.

Nada Behziz, The Bakersfield Californian (2005). Lying/fabricating and plagiarism. Writing mostly on health issues, she plagiarized from the New York Times and AP, made up sources, and got basic facts wrong. An investigation counted 29 fabricated or plagiarized articles. She also lied on her resume. She was fired.

Michael Bellesiles, professor of history, author of Arming America and recipient of Columbia University's Bancroft Prize. Lying/fabricating. He made "myth shattering" claims about the history of guns in America that were based on fabricated historical records. He resigned from Emory University.

Joe Biden, U.S. Senator and candidate for President (1988). Plagiarism. He withdrew from the 1988 presidential race after being discovered "delivering, without attribution, passages from a speech by British Labor party leader Neil Kinnock... a serious plagiarism incident involving Biden during his law school years; the senator's boastful exaggerations of his academic record at a New Hampshire campaign event; and the discovery of other quotations in Biden's speeches pilfered from past Democratic politicians." He's still a Senator, and back in the race for 2008.

Jayson Blair, The New York Times (2003). Lying/fabricating. He fabricated parts or all of at least 36 stories. He, along with his bosses Gerald Boyd and Howell Raines, resigned from the NYT.

The Boston Globe (2004). Fake photos, fake story. The Boston Globe published pictures alleging U.S. troops raped Iraqi women. The pictures turned out to be commercially available pornography.

Paul Bradley Richmond Times-Dispatch (2006). Lying/fabricating. Made up his story on reactions to President Bush's speech on immigration. He fabricated interviews. He reported on an event in the first person, yet he was not even in the same town. He was fired.

Rick Bragg, The New York Times (2003). "Drive-by" reporting. "Bragg's defense -- that it is common for Times correspondents to slip in and out of cities to ‘get the dateline' while relying on the work of stringers, researchers, interns and clerks -- has sparked more passionate disagreement than the clear-cut fraud and plagiarism committed by Blair. The issue, put starkly, is whether readers are being misled about how and where a story was reported." He resigned.

Fox Butterfield, New York Times (2000). Lying/fabricating and plagiarism. In 2003, a federal jury ruled that "the New York Times and one of its reporters libeled an Ohio Supreme Court justice" in an article published April 13, 2000. The jury found that the article was "not substantially true". He also "had lifted material from a story in The Boston Globe while reporting, ironically, on plagiarism by a Boston University dean".

Thom Calandra, Marketwatch.com (2005). Conflict of interest. He profited by selling stocks shortly after giving them positive write-ups in his newsletter. The SEC brought suit against him, which was settled.

Jimmy Carter, former U.S. President, Nobel Peace Prize winner and author of Palestine: Peace, Not Apartheid. Lying, plagiarism, bias. His book was so full of errors, including doctored maps, that his chief collaborator, Kenneth Stein of Emory University, resigned his position with the Carter Center. Carter's book was condemned by Alan Dershowitz and the Simon Wiesenthal Center, among others.

CBS, Dan Rather, Mary Mapes (2004). Fell for fake documents. CBS used forged documents from a non-credible source in claiming George W. Bush received favored treatment in the Air National Guard.


If you want to read the other 45 examples, check out the link.
 
still going to be liberal and hostile to conservatives, just hide it better....

Lessons in newsroom decorum
By Nicole Brodeur
Seattle Times staff columnist


That was me.

I was one of the people who cheered in The Seattle Times news meeting Monday when it was announced that presidential adviser Karl Rove had resigned.

The reaction to this bit of national news made national news, kicking off a Web-based debate about whether journalists should bring their personal views to the office. In the beginning, the Times' own David Postman and The Stranger's blog weighed in. By Thursday, The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz was calling the episode an "embarrassment." Rove himself laughed about it on Rush Limbaugh's radio show.

Times Executive Editor David Boardman was dismayed at our outburst.

In an internal memo to the newsroom, he wrote, "A good newsroom is a sacred and magical place in which we can and should test every assumption, challenge each other's thinking, ask the fundamental questions those in power hope we will overlook.

"... It is about independent thinking and sound, facts-based journalism," he continued, "the difference between what we do and the myopic screed that is passed off as 'advocacy journalism' these days."

Not buying that? I can't blame you. The hallowed halls of journalism that I was privileged to enter more than 20 years ago are looking more and more like the New York subway. The walls covered in bloggers' scrawl, the platform crowded with any yahoo with a camera and an open mike. All are headed to your computer screen or television for the 15 seconds you'll give them before moving on to the next hot spot.

That's not how we do things at this newspaper.

Here, every morning, some 20 smart, educated, well-read and diverse people gather around a table and talk. We offer opinions on how stories were approached, written and presented. We say what worked, what didn't, and how we can do it better next time.

In doing all that, we share a part of ourselves as taxpayers, parents, consumers and members of the community. I saw something. I know someone. I heard. I read. I remember.

In the course of 30 minutes, those ideas and plans are distilled into the news of the day.

I wasn't admonished on Monday; as a columnist, people expect me to have opinions.

I cheered in that meeting because I think Karl Rove is a dangerous man who has done enough whispering in President Bush's ear.

We are at war. Some $37 billion in federal funds have been spent just for the "reconstruction" of Iraq, even though a majority of Americans want their sons, daughters, spouses and tax dollars out. Bush's resolve proves we're screaming into the wind.

So you bet I cheered at that meeting. I cheered because I thought I could.

But I shouldn't have. It lacked consideration for other people in the room who may have other views about Karl Rove and George Bush, and held their tongues. It also flew in the face of the standard of objectivity that we as journalists try to uphold every day. Worse, it validates every fear people have about the media.

All these years, and I'm still learning.

And still passionate. I just need to choose my spots.

Nicole Brodeur's column appears Tuesday and Friday. Reach her at 206-464-2334 or nbrodeur@seattletimes.com.

Copyright © 2007 The Seattle Times Company
 
Here are the cliff notes from the Nicole Brodeur passage.

"I am a p.o.s. feminist liberal who hates Bush so get used to it."
 
This quote is all you need to know:

Here, every morning, some 20 smart, educated, well-read and diverse people gather around a table and talk. We offer opinions on how stories were approached, written and presented. We say what worked, what didn't, and how we can do it better next time.

In doing all that, we share a part of ourselves as taxpayers, parents, consumers and members of the community. I saw something. I know someone. I heard. I read. I remember.

Translation: Look at us elitists, we're smarter and more educated than you and we decide what news YOU PEOPLE should hear. It's all about ME. Count how many times in one paragraph she uses the word "I".

If that "article" was an apology, she sucks at it.

I sent her an email response:

Dear Nicole,

You think you are smarter than all the people who you assume read your newspaper. That is your starting point. And it is your biggest problem.

The fact that you are a liberal is not the biggest issue. The fact that you and other elitists like you have opinions is not a problem for me. The problem for me is that you believe journalism is about changing minds and pursuing a cause. You said it yourself in your latest article (apology?) describing your reaction to the reaction of those who did not approve of you cheering Karl Rove’s resignation. You said you will be more careful not to be so open about your bias from now on. Rest assured, there are many of us (also smart, educated, and diverse) who see right through your thin façade.

One final point: You decry the $37 billion spent on Iraq reconstruction. You also put the word “reconstruction” in quotes, implying that there is dishonesty going on. Yet you do not back up such an implication with any facts whatsoever. If that is not biased "journalism," I don’t know what is. Nevertheless, I wonder how many times you or anyone like you have reported on the more than $10 trillion spent in this country on the “war on poverty.” How is that "war" going so far? Ah, yes, but you said it yourself, you have to choose your spots, right?

Oh, by the way, don’t get too excited, I'm not a subscriber. I read your "article" off a political internet forum.

Sincerely,

David S

Louisville, Kentucky
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top