I’ve noticed (without cataloging the evidence) that the “liberal” press (or as some people refer to it, the serious source for news) and its supporters caution news consumers to be wary when they read stories from sources like Fox News and other “conservative” news press organizations. I agree, readers ought to read/view their news thoughtfully and think about the report critically no matter where they get their information. What strikes me as disingenuous is when those same folks stay mum on any story that doesn’t add up from one of the preferred news sources.
I have more thoughts to add, but little time to put them to ink (so-to-speak).
Below is an AP article posted at WCAX.com. The AP may not be so bold as to tell you who you should vote for, but they do a fine job of telling you who you should not vote for. I am probably violating fair use laws, but I wanted to show you the whole article for effect. I’ll comment at the end.
Perry’s credentials: As conservative as they come – WCAX.COM Local Vermont News, Weather and Sports-
By CHRIS TOMLINSONAssociated Press
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) – If Texas Gov. Rick Perry runs for president, he’d bring along strong conservative credentials.
He denounces Social Security and other entitlement programs, and he represents activists in fights on social issues such as abortion and gay rights.
Even within his own party, Perry is a rabble-rouser. He complains that too few politicians are standing up for their conservative beliefs.
Perry puts his beliefs on display in his books and his legislative agenda in Texas.
He’s advocated laws that require a sonogram before an abortion and that force police to enforce federal immigration law.
But most of all, he believes in state’s rights and says that’s where laws concerning marijuana and gay marriage should be decided.
Whether those politics can win him the presidency is an open question.
The title says it all, but in case you haven’t been numbed into believing that conservatives are evil/bad/sexist/racist/intolerant/etc., then I’ll extract some goodies to help you loathe conservatives just like our media shepherds.
Paragraph two helps you understand why conservatives are bad, you see. They denounce Social Security and other entitlement programs (I.e. welfare). Don’t bother with their reasoning or explanations, all we need to know is that conservatives “denounce” them. We also know that they are “activists” on social issues.
The next few paragraphs tell us more about Perry specifically. Perry is a “rabble-rouser”, he “complains”, he actually puts into practice his conservative beliefs by having you take a look at the human life that you’re about to kill (abortion), and actually enforcing laws that help keep everyone safe and playing by the same rules (immigration), and he thinks that the states have rights before the federal government.
The AP reporter wraps it up with this little “I hope not” gem:
Whether those politics can win him the presidency is an open question.
I doubt there is any question in his mind about what to expect.
Journalists working for Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic expressed outrage over the tough questioning Obama received from ABC anchors Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos at a debate and some of them plotted to protect Obama from the swirling controversy, according to the Daily Caller.
“What I think is fair to say about Fox — and certainly it’s the way we view it — is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party,” said Anita Dunn, White House communications director, on CNN. “They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is.”
This entire article is worth reading, but the above quote kind of speaks for itself, don’t you think?
Anita Dunn cries, “They aren’t being nice to my boss!” Or at least, that’s what it should sound like.
Here are a few quotes from David Gergen,
The press always has the last barrel of ink.
Tony Blankley,
Going after a news organization, in my experience, is always a loser
and Nia Malika Henderson.
Obama’s only been a boon to their ratings and I don’t understand how this kind of escalation of rhetoric and kind of taking them on, one on one, would do anything other than escalate their ratings even more
But, if you trust the analysis of the Pew Research Center, here is the real story (emphasis mine):
a study by the Pew Research Center showed that 40 percent of Fox News stories on Obama in the last six weeks of the campaign were negative. Similarly, 40 percent of Fox News’ stories on Obama’s Republican opponent, Sen. John McCain, were negative.
On CNN, by contrast, there was a 22-point disparity in the percentage of negative stories on Obama (39 percent) and McCain (61 percent). The disparity was even greater at MSNBC, according to Pew, where just 14 percent of Obama stories were negative, compared to a whopping 73 percent of McCain stories — a spread of 59 points.
I’m partisan and I’ll admit it, so I would prefer to see positive stories about my team and negative stories about the other team. However, as a reporting organization it’s their job to cover all the stories and I (grudgingly) accept that. If you’re going to pride your organization on “fair and balance” it seems like (according to this study) Fox News has done an admirable job. I wish the same could be said of the other (so-called) news organizations.
I’m not sure who chose the headline for this article (WCAX or the AP), but it shows either a slight bias against the GOP or an indifference to the words used to report the story.
to present in or as if in an entertainment showcase: The bar showcases young jazz pianists.
to show to best advantage: The part minimizes her acting ability and showcases her singing.
to present as a special event: The TV network plans to showcase a new production of the play.
The (subtle) implication here is that the white firefighter from Connecticut is just entertainment (they don’t even use his name in an attempt to dehumanize him – it’s Frank Ricci, by the way). He’s just for show.
The AP reports (sarcasm alert): Once again *collective sigh*, the GOP has to resort to cheap parlor tricks in their attempt to stall Sotomayor’s nomination to the supreme court. Will those racist, sexist pigs in the GOP ever learn to be empathetic to the plight of females and minorities?
This morning I was driving between Lebanon, NH and Hartford, VT and I was trying to find something worth listening to on the radio. I’m not sophisticated enough to have Sirius or XM, so I’m stuck with the regular AM/FM varieties. Anyway, I turned to NPR. I usually would not waste much time listening to this stuff, but there really wasn’t anything else. The interviewer was interviewing some one who was talking about another some one. To the best of my memory and limited listening time, let’s see if I can identify the players.
Interviewer: Some wide-eyed, self-described journalist
Interviewee: Some author/editor who had an intimate knowledge of the subject of the interview
The Subject: Some left-wing, communist sympathizing author who apparently was able to find out what Americans were really thinking.
So, no more than 1 minute into my listening enjoyment the interviewee makes a comment that goes something like:
Our Subject noted how people really feel about race and he even heard from some people who thought that they too may be harboring some deep seeded racism that they had not yet acknowledged. This was evident in this year’s presidential election when McCain and Palin resorted to racist attacks in their campaign.
I laughed out loud, incredulously. What racist attacks? I confess to being a republican/conservative hack, but I don’t recall anything that was even remotely racist coming out of either of their mouths. The next part boggled my mind. What happened next? Well, nothing. The interviewer continued on with his interview of the interviewee without so much as a pause to clarify how McCain and Palin had been racist in their campaign.
Media bias. Ha! Some “journalists” are so entrenched in their utopian ideals that they don’t even notice when they are betraying the truth they purport to be reporting.
I just viewed this hit piece on the Republican party (more accurately, a hit piece on Republican values):
After enduring a few minutes of shameless pandering to gullible liberals I perused other areas of the website and found this little snippet jumping out at me:
Most political news in America is influenced or controlled by the Republican right, who want you to falsely believe that the media has a liberal bias.
So tell me…who really controls the media? Is it the liberals that right-wing radio talk show hosts tell me? Or is it the conservatives of the Republican right?
I make no qualms about being partisan here, but I honestly don’t understand how you can actually believe that the major media outlets are controlled by the “Republican Right”, or right-wingers in general. I am not a student of the news and this is one of the things that I find infuriating about the public discourse on the matter of media. I’ve read (and heard) thoughtful commentary on how the media is largely biased toward the liberal side of the political spectrum. When I read (or hear) comments about how the media is conservatively biased, the arguments seem shallow and reactionary (I hear choruses from the left shouting, “I’m not biased, you are!” or “I know you are, but what am I?”).
As far as I’ve noticed, the only major TV news outlet that has an even remotely conservative tilt is Fox. The others just don’t come close to being balanced. Their anchors and commentators come across sounding reasonable and balanced, because they are bland and non-judgmental in their presentation. Unfortunately, the research that is done prior to appearing on screen is where all of the bias occurs.
Take for example the Joe the Plumber story compared to the Bill Ayers story. We know a lot about both individuals. The former because he had the audacity to have a conservative/libertarian type of question for Barack Obama that didn’t come in the normal bad-guy clothing of a scary Republican or talk show host. The latter because he has a well documented criminal past. To my knowledge there is no relationship between Joe the Plumber and John McCain so Joe’s influence on McCain’s presidential policies is probably limited at best to the sound bite “Spread the Wealth”. However, we know that there is a close relationship with Obama and Ayers and that some of the influence of that relationship may even reveal to us some of what Obama’s policies might look like as president. The first relationship dominates the major news outlets for days (even a week) ostensibly to get all the facts about who Joe the Plumber is and how his views impact the country. The second relationship is largely ignored by the major news outlets and is only reported because the McCain campaign has actually mentioned the connections on the campaign trail (which is being over-reported, perhaps).
How does that figure into the claims of bias on both sides? Like I said, I honestly can’t seem how people really believe that there is a generally conservative bias of the news media. Interestingly, the aforementioned web site encourages readers to check out their news sources in more than one place (especially not TV). When they list sources to investigate it’s one newspaper (the New York Times, of course), one radio program (NPR, of course), and two Internet sites (the BBC and the barely disguised leftist group, PIRG – Public Interest Research Group). In other words, check out all the facts, but here is a select list of (left-leaning) places to get your facts.
How can the news be both conservatively and liberally biased? Only in the minds of liberals who have given up thinking for themselves (probably during a mandatory diversity/sensitivity training course at college – in fairness to colleges, many high schools are helping to train liberals at a much younger age).
Marc Whitman's Blog 