Liberal Press - I'm fed-up!
 

Fed-up with the interminable whining from the tightie righties about how the US news media is "left-leaning".

Here's some candor for you...

The article is in reference to an apology from the Washington Post about it's right-leaning news and editiorial coverage of the Iraq Attack. Highlights:

"NEW YORK -- The Washington Post yesterday joined the conga line of respected U.S. news organizations apologizing for flawed reporting in the runup to war in Iraq last year, publishing a front-page story by media reporter Howard Kurtz that called the paper's coverage "strikingly one-sided at times."

...Executive editor Bill Keller's note ran on an inside page. "Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper," he wrote.

...In his 3,000-word article, Mr. Kurtz said Post editors tended to relegate pieces that criticized the Bush administration's war plans and the rationale for invading Iraq to the back pages of the paper."

I urge all Americans to have access to and use at least one foreign news source as part of their daily information gathering. Otherwise, what you don't know might kill you or someone else...

Personally, I use the Canadian paper the Globe & Mail (electronically). They are a conservative - business oriented broadsheet and I highly recommend it. Everyone, including the members of the US news media have their own agendas; and there's nothing wrong with that - people are people. An external, likely more objective view of US affairs can often be very edifying.

I've always found the epithet "liberal [media|press]" amusing, knowing that said entities are owned by some of the richest, most influencial right-wing bigwigs.

But Joe, I _do_ read a Non-US news source: Al-Jazeera! They're great, but slightly more conservative than I really like. Do you know of any papers that are a little farther left?

TIA,

Dan

(assuming you have tongue firmly placed in cheek)

Given that independent, unbiased news media is a pretty basic component of a functioning democracy, are you not at least somewhat troubled by this?

Maybe this gives some insight into why popular opinion in virtually every nation on the planet except the US was against the Iraq invasion. Does the rest of the planet get meaningfully different news than the US?

So let me get this straight:

1) The mainstream U.S. media incessantly publishes anything they can dig up criticizing the Bush administration's plans/policies/results in Iraq.

2) Then they apologize for being so right-leaning.

3) Then you compare them with foreign media sources, that are even more unabashedly anti-Bush. Ever listened to the BBC? Tip to BBC journalists--better to draw your conclusions after the interview, rather than shaping the interview to fit your conclusions. :rolleyes:

4) And somehow this all makes sense to you and proves some sort of "there is no liberal media" point of yours?

OK... :confused:

PEW research just did a survey of journalists...5:1 liberal.

Right-wing bigwigs?....You mean like Don Hewitt, George Soros, Ted Turner, Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, George Steponallofus...You mean like the LATimes, NYTimes, WashingtonTimes.

You have to be kidding me is my point...You have bought the Democrat disinformation bit...The smoke screen that media is right-wing is evidenced by the only media the lefties attack is FoxNews and AM radio...Why?...Cause everyone else is marching lockstep.

You people are so deluded.

Right...Abu Graiab got, what, 2 solid weeks of front page coverage?...The World Trade Center buildings falling images were buried in short order....Trent Lott got crucified as a racist for honoring Strom Thurmond...When Chris Dodd says about an ex-Klansman, "He could not think of a time" when Robert Byrd would not have been a "great leader" for America.

Nothing to see here, right wing press, blah blah blah...LIARS!

Yeah, right, Thom...this Bernie guy was unbiased too, right?

From your silly little article
The United States is the only industrialized nation on earth that does not have a national healthcare program. Yet, despite 41 million people with no health insurance and millions more underinsured, we spend far more per capita on healthcare than any other nation. Maybe the reason is that we are seeing no good programs on television, in between the prescription drug advertisements, discussing how we can provide quality healthcare for all at far lower per capita costs than we presently spend?

We DO have a National Healthcare Program. You live in California. How many illegal foreign Nationals to you provide FREE healthcare for? Maybe that's where too much American Tax Payer money goes.

The United States has the most unfair distribution of wealth and income in the industrialized world, and the highest rate of childhood poverty. There’s a lot of television promoting greed and self-interest, but how many programs speak to the “justice” of the richest 1 percent owning more wealth than the bottom 95 percent? Or of the CEOs of major corporations earning 500 times what their employees make?

What is so "unfair" about our distribution of wealth? Or would you prefer a more "socialistic" way of life, where everybody has the exact same thing? No matter how hard they worked or earned. to he!! with leaving anything to your heirs...that just wouldn't be right. The person WITH something to contribute to society (whether it be the ability to shoot a basketball through the net, or develop some new fangled way of doing somthing) should be paid the same amount as someone who offers NOTHING???


And from a left perspective there is — well, no one. The Republican Party, corporate owners and advertisers have their point of view well represented on radio. Unfortunately, the rest of America has almost nothing.

Come on!!! the Left had their chance with Al Franken. I guess the problem boils down to this..."No one was buying it!"

Randy

I'm pretty sure the ownership lines he traces for the major media corporations are correct & not made up.

It just doesn't pass the smell test...If I understand what Democrats say about the "evil rich white Republican", they are greedy, malicious and want to keep us all on the plantation of high quality cheap products...so, why in the world would the mainstream media talking heads and editors be so far left and hostile to their evil right-wing cabal and their puppet GW Bush?

unfreakinbelievable.

...aw forget it. Withdrawn.

I don't understand? Are you saying that its unbelieveable that large corporations own these media outlets? Or that its unbelieveable that these corporations are anything other than far left-wing?

Ok, let me just throw out one event for an example:
The Israeli Barrier Wall.

The Haaretz reports that the wall is partway complete, and that terrorist events (to include attempted bombings, people caught halfway into the act, actual bombings, etc.) are dramatically down in the areas covered by the wall. Mortar fire is still problematic, but even that is now required to be more accurate to do real damage. The Israeli people are finally seeing something vaguely resembling peace.

Al-Jazeera writes a blazing shower of nasty-flames about "Sharon's Illegal Apartheid Land-Grab Wall," and how it has further divided the region, destroyed the Arab way of life, and infuriated the Palestinians and the international Arab community. The blood of the Israelis will run in the streets, blah blah blah.

NYT does a photodocumentary (still posted) on the horror of the wall, and how terrible it is for the poor innocent Palestinians. Pictures of small children playing in front of the wall, destitute mothers sobbing about how their husbands can't get to work because of the wall, etc. NYT further gives front page coverage to the UN resolution demanding the destruction of the wall, though it gave no coverage to the positive aspects of the wall.


Ok, so what's truth? Who's biased, and how?

Dan

It occurred to me that part of the problem why left wing radio doesn't catch on as well as right wing is that those poor liberal slobs have to work two jobs and can't take the time to listen to the radio all day..

Just a random thought (I get one every so often)

How can we argue with those choices as objective sources of information? Come on Dan - you're smarter than that - you don't really expect us to believe that you looked to those sources as objective on that issue do you?

Sounds like you're trying to write your own "blazing shower of nasty-flames"...

Or perhaps, Bob, those "poor liberal slobs" are spending too much time out in the streets protesting so they aren't able to hold down a job! :eek:

Randy

Just giving some examples of various news sources on a given event. Recognizing that Haaretz and Al Jazeera are on opposite extremes of the bias, I found it interesting that the NYT reported noticeably farther towards Al Jazeera than it did towards Haaretz. (shrug) You provide an apology from the media saying they're too far to the right, I provide data showing they're too far to the left. I know, it's just one data point, but there are countless others if you'd bother to look for them.

I also find your response interesting. Though devoid of content, the derived value was interesting: rather than answering either of the questions, commenting usefully on the content of my post, or contributing something of value to the discussion, you accuse me of lack of objectivity and inciting aggression. Hmmm, interesting.

Dan

It’s not accurate to say that because the NYT ran a story featuring Palestinian suffering as a result of the barrier that they therefore took Al Jazeera’s ‘side’.

The barrier has been criticized by people other than Al Jazeera’s journalists:
International Committee of the Red Cross
World Court
President Bush
Israeli Supreme Court
Amnesty International

To say they simply took A J’s reporting & spewed it out again is not really accurate.

Nor is it accurate to say that the NYT are "right wing" because they didn't tell the "rest of the story" ie the big drop in suicide bombings since the wall went up. If you want to be fair, let's hear both sides instead of the old "it bleeds it leads".