Liberal Press - I'm fed-up!

[Mulholland]

Vice President Dick Cheney's criticism on Thursday of John Kerry for promising to lead a "more sensitive war on terror," unleashed media angst with all the networks focusing a story on it. ABC anchor Elizabeth Vargas called it a "scathing attack," CNN's John King described it as a "fierce attack" and from Athens, NBC's Tom Brokaw tagged it a "harsh attack." On CBS, anchor Scott Pelley fretted about how while Cheney "hammered hard on one word in particular, trying to portray Democrat John Kerry as soft on terrorism," Kerry "refused to bite back." ABC's Vargas, however, told viewers the opposite, that "the Bush campaign questioned Senator Kerry's ability to be Commander-in-Chief," but "the Kerry campaign showed it can play that game, too."


Never mind 4 years of Democrats going slanderously and libelously negative...Cheney rebuts Kerry's bull***** and he is rendering "harsh attack?"


Gotta love that right-wing press.

[SteveStromberg]

Here is nearly every Newspaper in the world

http://www.refdesk.com/paper.html

[widebody911]

Some reading on the myths of "liberal media"

http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/myths.html

[Mulholland]

Originally posted by widebody911
Some reading on the myths of "liberal media"

http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/myths.html

[Superman]

Hmmmmm. Washington-based reporters, eh? So, these people seem unanimous? And let's see, their jobs are to be in Washington DC day after day gathering, analyzing and presenting as much information as possible? And their opinion seems to be virtually unanimous?

You know I don't doubt that the majority of reporters are liberal. Heck, I think it's a brute fact that the majority of Americans are liberal. Certainly, the democratic candidate in the most recent presidential election was the candidate with the most votes. But I would expect something like a 45% to 55% split. Or maybe as deep as 60/40. Or let's pretend it could be 70/30.

But this group (the folks that know more than anyone about what our elected officials are up to) is virtually unanimous. What do you guys make of that? what could this mean?

[RallyJon]

What do you guys make of that? what could this mean?

Time for a purge? Re-education camps, maybe?

Read Bernie Goldberg's book and you can figure out what it means.

[ubiquity0]

Clearly a narrow-minded & ill-informed demographic.



Can we get some conspiracy theories here?

[ubiquity0]

oh... here's one:

Bernie Goldberg, Arrogance
“It is no coincidence that the beginning of the collapse of the old [New York] Times standards coincided almost exactly with the rise of the liberation movements of the last sixties and early seventies, particularly feminism,”

[Mulholland]

Originally posted by Superman
But this group (the folks that know more than anyone about what our elected officials are up to) is virtually unanimous. What do you guys make of that? what could this mean?

They are ultra-left scumbags who are far-far removed from reality, and think that they should control public perception from their ivory towers and 5th Ave apartments.

[widebody911]

Originally posted by Mulholland


Your 12 year-old graph still doesn't prove a link between the way reporters vote and the what gets published. Remember, the boss (Ruper Murdoch, not Springsteen) gets the final say in what goes out the door. You don't create material the boss likes, you go out the door.

[ubiquity0]

Originally posted by Mulholland
They are ultra-left scumbags who are far-far removed from reality, and think that they should control public perception from their ivory towers and 5th Ave apartments.

So how about some input?
Assuming the statistic is similar today to 12 years ago:
-Do all these these Washington journalists ‘turn’ liberal as a result of their careers? If so, what is it about their work that causes this?
-Does the notion of a journalistic career in the capital attract ultra left wing liberals as a rule? If so, why?
-Why are right-wing thinkers not interested in documenting the workings of the United States for the public?
-Why are the Murdoch’s, Disney’s et al seemingly comfortable with what you think is such an extreme left-wing slant to the publications under their names?
-Where are all these journalists that are raking in the $$$$$ to pay for their 5th Ave apartments?

[dd74]

Ummm...I don't read the NY Post, but I thought that was supposed to be the conservative opponent to the NYT. Here, we used to have the Herald Examiner up until 1987. That was the conservative opponent to the LA Times, which was for the most part a fascist rag (the LA Times), until Otis Chandler - hotrodder, race car driver and surfer) took stewardship in 1960.

So you have ABC's Vargas (pretty mouth) and FOX's O'Reilly (loudmouth). Left journalism vs. right. So what's the argument? Do you guys want middle-of-the-road journalism? Well, hmmm... maybe that's where we come in after taking a sampling from the left and right.

[CamB]

Interesting. This thread has gone from "are the media biased (and liberal)" to "are the media enlightened (and thus liberal)".

Hehe

Jason, re reporting of Cheney's reply to "sensitive" - I dunno what you expect - I read what Cheney said and it was scathing. He used lotsa sarcasm, and what is the alternative? "Cheney launches gentle rebuttal of Kerry's sensitive comment"?

[techweenie]

Cam, I think the underlying issue is spelled out very clearly by Karl Rove:

"As people do better, they start voting like Republicans -- unless they have too much education and vote Democratic, which proves there can be too much of a good thing."