New York Times executive editor admits liberal bias in news

[natevines]

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/marktapscott/mt20050806.shtml

Thanks to a virtual blackout by his fellow editors elsewhere in the media, odds are good that you haven’t heard or read that Executive Editor Bill Keller of The New York Times recently capitulated in the debate over bias in America’s newspaper of record.

Keller’s capitulation came in a lengthy memo he distributed in the Times’ newsroom in May as a response to an updating of a massive report by a committee appointed in the wake of the Jayson Blair scandal to recommend measures to restore the gray lady’s credibility.

In a section of the memo headed “The News/Opinion Divide,” Keller conceded that "even sophisticated readers of The New York Times sometimes find it hard to distinguish between news coverage and commentary in our pages." The Times will always carry both news and opinion, but, Keller argued, “we should make the distinction as clear as possible.”

Think about those statements for a moment. Here we have the top man in the newsroom at the nation’s most important daily – the newspaper that more than any other sets the mainstream print and broadcast media’s agenda – essentially conceding what countless critics have argued for years. Thus we see a storied institution admitting its need to rededicate itself to achieving a standard previously claimed as the daily norm of performance.

Not only that, but Keller also conceded one of the major problems facing the Times in the aftermath of the Blair scandal is the cultural isolation that marks the paper’s newsroom. To counter that isolation, Keller encouraged his colleagues to undertake "a concerted effort to stretch beyond our predominantly urban, culturally liberal orientation, to cover the full range of our national conversation."

To drive the point home, Keller also noted that "our news coverage needs to embrace unorthodox views and contrarian opinions and to portray lives both more radical and more conservative than those most of us experience. We need to listen carefully to colleagues who are at home in realms that are not familiar to most of us."

Again, think about those words. Critics have charged for years that the Times newsroom is out of step with the majority of the country because the editorial staff represents but a small atypical slice of American demographics and opinion. That narrowness in turn has handicapped the daily’s ability to identify, assess and credibly report much of the news deemed important by the rest of the nation. Now Keller says it’s time for the newsroom to get in touch with the rest of America.

A significant part of the effort to reach out to the rest of the nation concerns the Times’ ability to understand the one-third of Americans who identify themselves as religious conservatives (i.e. evangelicals and fundamentalists of all stripes, plus conservative Catholics and Orthodox Jews).

To that end, Keller encouraged the daily newsroom staff to listen to colleagues working on the Times’ magazine for lessons “about portraying religious conservatives in an interesting and three-dimensional way.” He also warned about “the misuse of [the phrase] ‘religious fundamentalists’ to describe religious conservatives.”

Perhaps Keller would be willing to host an internal editorial seminar featuring Christian journalists like David Neff of Christianity Today, Christian philosophers like Nancy Pearcey and Christian bloggers like Joe Carter of Evangelical Outpost to explain the lay of the religious conservative land?

So how should long-suffering critics of the Times react to Keller’s words and actions? Much of the commentary on the Right side of the Blogosphere has been rather predictably negative, snarky or sarcastic, or some combination thereof. I believe that approach is mistaken.

How about instead we offer Keller encouragement and praise for ‘fessing up’ to serious problems of longstanding and for putting his own career and prestige on the line in making the effort to deal with those problems in a systematic and reasonable way?

It wouldn’t hurt, either, for Times critics on the Right to show some patience because changing an entrenched culture like that of a newsroom isn’t going to happen overnight, nor will it occur without some unexpectedly abbreviated careers and a surplus of discontent bred by an inability or refusal to change.

There will certainly be times when Keller and his newsroom allies will wonder if it’s really worth the effort. A good word from those who have been on the outside critically looking in may be the difference between throwing in the towel and fighting the good fight another day.
I say give the man a break. And some encouragement.



Fascinating stuff. Hopefully this will affect a change...

[DodgingCars]

Sounds like he's admitting bias in the NYT.

Does anyone deny that there is any liberal bias in the media? Do conservative really deny that there is any conservative bias in the media?

The news is reported and interpretted by people. There will always be bias. Read the LA Times pre-1960s -- it was conservatively biased. The pendalum swung.

I think most people (like myself) argue that big liberal media conspiracy doesn't exist. I don't believe that most of the so-called bias (when it occurs) is intentional, nor do I believe it's as pervasive as many of our hardcore conservatives seem to believe.

My mother-in-law seems to see the liberal conspiracy in every news report she hears/sees/reads. She'll tell me, "See.. they didn't even mention that Bush did [such and such good thing]. Liberal bias." And I'll say, "What did that have to do with the story they were reporting? And how did you hear about such and such good thing? The media?"

[General Zod]

Funny how major executives for the L.A. Times, New York Times, ABC, CBS, etc have all come forward in recent years saying how they recognize that there is a liberal bias and they are trying to change it.. yet the people sitting behind their keyboards just say "No there isn't."

OK..

I know your saying you recognize that it's there, but not intentional. With over 85% admitting to being of liberal leanings in the buisness.. how can it possibly not be?

[chess]

poor republicans. they are so persecuted. i fear they'll never gain any power because the playing field is so uneven.

those damn sneaky liberals are probably just playin' possum.

[kvrdave]

poor republicans. they are so persecuted. i fear they'll never gain any power because the playing field is so uneven.

those damn sneaky liberals are probably just playin' possum.

no, they're dead.


-wink-

[chess]

no, they're dead.


-wink-

maybe we should poke em with a stick? You know, just to be sure.

I'm ready for a third party anyway...one that's willing to tell the corporations and the lobbyists to fuck off and actually represent the people.

[Myster X]

you guys are all WRONG
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0465001777.01._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-dp-500-arrow,TopRight,45,-64_AA240_SH20_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg


yeah, very credible :lol:

Customers who bought this book also bought
Big Lies : The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth by Joe Conason
The Republican Noise Machine : Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy by David Brock
Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News by Bernard Goldberg
Blinded by the Right : The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative by David Brock
When Presidents Lie: A History of Official Deception and Its Consequences by Eric Alterman
What's the Matter with Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America by Thomas Frank

[Myster X]

Yup, no liberal media. Why FOX News is ahead of the pack.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash9.htm

CABLE CONTROVERSY: CNN AGREES TO AIR BLOODY ABORTION AD ON JUDGE ROBERTS
Tue Aug 09 2005 19:41:54 ET

CNN has reviewed and agreed to run a controversial ad produced by a pro-abortion group that falsely accuses Supreme Court nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers supporting a convicted clinic bomber!

The news network has agreed to a $125,000 ad buy from NARAL, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, for a commercial which depicts a bombed out 1998 Birmingham, AL abortion clinic.

The Birmingham clinic was bombed seven years after Roberts signed the legal briefing.

The linking of Roberts to "violent fringe groups" is the sharpest attack against the nominee thus far.

However, the non-partisan University of Pennsylvania’s Annenberg Factcheck.org reviewed the NARAL ad and found it to be “false.”

Factcheck.org found "in words and images, the ad conveys the idea that Roberts took a legal position excusing bombing of abortion clinics, which is false."

The Republican National Committee is preparing to send a letter to television stations asking them to pull the spot, according to sources.

The RNC’s letter claims: "NARAL's ad is a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts that has no purpose but to mislead the American people."

[Groucho]

The subject header doesn't match the story.

What a huge surprise for this forum.

[DVD Polizei]

Developing....



:eek:

[DVD Polizei]

Oh, what Drudge probably won't mention:

“In the four years before John Roberts argued Bray vs. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic in front of the Supreme Court, anti-choice radicals were responsible for at least 48 bombings and arsons in 24 states, along with 57 acid attacks, more than 4,000 disruptive acts such as bomb threats, harassing calls and hate mail,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “I want to be very clear that we are not suggesting Mr. Roberts condones or supports clinic violence. I’m sure he finds bombings and murder abhorrent. But still his ideological view of the law compelled him to go out of his way to argue on behalf of someone like Michael Bray, who had already been convicted of a string of bombings.”

[nemein]

But still his ideological view of the law compelled him to go out of his way to argue on behalf of someone like Michael Bray, who had already been convicted of a string of bombings.”

Who was Roberts' client in the case and how did he end up w/ it (aka did he go out and solicit it or was it assigned to him)?

[wmansir]

Oh, what Drudge probably won't mention:

“In the four years before John Roberts argued Bray vs. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic in front of the Supreme Court, anti-choice radicals were responsible for at least 48 bombings and arsons in 24 states, along with 57 acid attacks, more than 4,000 disruptive acts such as bomb threats, harassing calls and hate mail,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “I want to be very clear that we are not suggesting Mr. Roberts condones or supports clinic violence. I’m sure he finds bombings and murder abhorrent. But still his ideological view of the law compelled him to go out of his way to argue on behalf of someone like Michael Bray, who had already been convicted of a string of bombings.”Yes, she really wants to be clear about that:
NARAL Pro-Choice America TV ad, "Speaking Out"

Announcer: Seven years ago, a bomb destroyed a women's health clinic in Birmingham, Alabama.

(On screen: Footage of bombed clinic)

(Tex on screen: New Woman/All Women Health Clinic; January 28, 1998)

Emily Lyons: When a bomb ripped through my clinic, I almost lost my life.

Announcer: Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber.

(On screen: Footage of Roberts; image of April 11, 1991 brief from Bray v. Alexandria)

(Text on screen: Roberts filed court brief supporting clinic protesters)

Emily Lyons: I'm determined to stop this violence so I'm speaking out.

Announcer: Call your Senators. Tell them to oppose John Roberts. America can't afford a Justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans.

[wmansir]

Who was Roberts' client in the case and how did he end up w/ it (aka did he go out and solicit it or was it assigned to him)?
The case involved abortion clinics seeking protection orders to bar anti-abortion protesters from blocking clinics. As part of their case the abortion clinics also claimed that the protests were violating federal non-discrimination laws. The Bush 41 administration felt that if the court were to issue a ruling that found anti-abortion measures to be discriminatory it could be used to challenge the admin's position of specifically barring federal funds for abortions.

Robert's didn't represent the client, Operation Rescue (http://www.operationrescue.org/), but filed a friend of the court brief (http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1990/sg900229.txt) on behave of the government in support of the non-violent anti-abortion protesters. The brief maintained the blockades were not discriminatory under federal law. It also makes an argument that blockades do not interfere with interstate travel, thought the brief doesn't explain the government's interest on that point.

[wmansir]

Getting back to media bias...


Bush, advisers paint rosy picture of U.S. economy (http://reuters.myway.com//article/20050809/2005-08-09T221647Z_01_N09447001_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-ECONOMY-BUSH-DC.html)

By Patricia Wilson

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - President Bush and his top domestic policy advisers painted a rosy picture of the economy on Tuesday even as Americans struggle with high energy prices and growing health care costs.

Despite recent positive economic news, opinion polls give the White House consistently low marks for its handling of the economy. But Bush said the strategy is working and boasted that the U.S. economy was growing faster than any other major industrialized country. ....

[mosquitobite]

Funny how major executives for the L.A. Times, New York Times, ABC, CBS, etc have all come forward in recent years saying how they recognize that there is a liberal bias and they are trying to change it.. yet the people sitting behind their keyboards just say "No there isn't."

OK..

I know you're saying you recognize that it's there, but not intentional. With over 85% admitting to being of liberal leanings in the buisness.. how can it possibly not be?

Right. And the other difference is the conservative media wears its ideology on it's sleeve. Rush, Ann, Hannity, all LOUDLY and PROUDLY proclaim to be right-wing. Air America proclaims to be left-wing.

The difference with the NY Times/LA Times/CNN/CBS, et all is they all sit there and still say :hscratch: what bias? We don't see any bias?! You're crazy! Fox News is biased I tell you! (Simply because they report BOTH sides, they somehow are right wing :rolleyes: )

It's like they're EMBARRASSED to admit they are left wing! (Probably because they see where Fox is in ratings and where Air America is!)
:lol:

[Groucho]

Right. And the other difference is the conservative media wears its ideology on it's sleeve."Fair and Balanced."

:lol:

[VinVega]

It's like they're EMBARRASSED to admit they are left wing! (Probably because they see where Fox is in ratings and where Air America is!) :lol:
You're damn right they are embarrassed to admit it. Just like most Democratic members in Congress. The Republican attack machine as done wonders in this area. Liberal is now perceived to be a bad word.

[classicman2]

Liberal is a bad word - if it means you follow the dictates of liberals such as George McGovern & those of his ilk.

Now if you follow the dictates of another liberal Democrat (and others of his ilk) who ran against McGovern, btw, Henry Scoop Jackson - then liberal is a good word.

[Geofferson]

Liberal is a bad word - if it means you follow the dictates of liberals such as George McGovern & those of his ilk.

Now if you follow the dictates of another liberal Democrat (and others of his ilk) who ran against McGovern, btw, Henry Scoop Jackson - then liberal is a good word.
How about the use of the word liberal in today's world? It's safe to say that it is not viewed in the same light as it was in the past.

[mosquitobite]

You're damn right they are embarrassed to admit it. Just like most Democratic members in Congress. The Republican attack machine as done wonders in this area. Liberal is now perceived to be a bad word.

rotfl

As if conservatives aren't attacked?? As if the left isn't trying to paint everyone conservative with a "religious freak" brush?

rotfl

To me, liberal is a bad word! :lol:

[classicman2]

I view the word differently than the general populace. But hell, I view a lot of things differently from the general populace. ;)

[Hiro11]

NY Times
CNN
Boston Globe
NPR
PBS
LA Times
Newsweek, Time and The Nation
Most movies, most of Hollywood and most musicians
The Guardian
The Independent
BBC
..are biased to the left

The Wall Street Journal
Fox News
The Chicago Tribune
The National Review
The Weekly Standard
The Daily Mail
The Daily Telegraph
Most Christian organizations
Most corporations
...are biased to the right.

This is not to say that any of these news sources or media groups are either always wrong about issues or always right. You have to read many sources on both sides and make up your own mind. Is that really so hard? Sometimes it's unclear to me why is this still a topic of conversation.

[DodgingCars]

"Fair and Balanced."

:lol:

THEY REPORT BOTH SIDES!! You're so blinded by your ideology it's sad!

[DodgingCars]

Funny how major executives for the L.A. Times, New York Times, ABC, CBS, etc have all come forward in recent years saying how they recognize that there is a liberal bias and they are trying to change it.. yet the people sitting behind their keyboards just say "No there isn't."

OK..

I know your saying you recognize that it's there, but not intentional. With over 85% admitting to being of liberal leanings in the buisness.. how can it possibly not be?

They recognize that they lean to the left and that their personal bias affects their newsreporting, but I don't believe that most journalists are thinking, "What are ways I can spin this story to make the conservatives look bad?"

I also don't think it's as "bad" as many claim it is. I don't watch a lot of tv news, but I listen to NPR Morning Edition and All Things Considered -- and NPR is supposed to be part of the great liberal media consipiracy... I just don't hear it. I know my own beliefs may blind me a little... but the point is, any bias is "slightly biased" at best.

[Geofferson]

Well, if Katie Couric acknowledges it...

http://www.everythingiknowiswrong.com/2004/05/finally_an_admi.html

Couric contended that “most people, I think, on the street would say the media it tends, tend to be more liberal than conservative" and she proposed: “Aren't most people in journalism, primarily, except for say on Fox, and in certain conservative publications, aren't they for the most part, and of course the media is, are not monolithic, but pro-choice, you know, against prayer in school, probably favor affirmative action? I mean don't you think that's, that's fairly typical? And if so is it, why isn't it fair to say that liberals, sort of, are controlling the mainstream media?"

[mosquitobite]

They recognize that they lean to the left and that their personal bias affects their newsreporting, but I don't believe that most journalists are thinking, "What are ways I can spin this story to make the conservatives look bad?"

I also don't think it's as "bad" as many claim it is. I don't watch a lot of tv news, but I listen to NPR Morning Edition and All Things Considered -- and NPR is supposed to be part of the great liberal media consipiracy... I just don't hear it. I know my own beliefs may blind me a little... but the point is, any bias is "slightly biased" at best.


What's wrong with it is they don't even attempt to give the other side! Here we have news outlets supposedly giving us the "news" but they are only giving one side. Or giving us NOTHING if it contradicts their world view.

How many times has CBS for instance reported on the Air America scandal?
Now honestly answer this...might be hard to acknowledge, but ponder it for a second... how many times do you think it would have been reported on if it had been Rush Limbaugh?
:hscratch:

[DodgingCars]

What's wrong with it is they don't even attempt to give the other side! Here we have news outlets supposedly giving us the "news" but they are only giving one side. Or giving us NOTHING if it contradicts their world view.

What sides are they giving? Give me an example where they are blatantly taking sides.

How many times has CBS for instance reported on the Air America scandal?
Now honestly answer this...might be hard to acknowledge, but ponder it for a second... how many times do you think it would have been reported on if it had been Rush Limbaugh?
:hscratch:

The Air America story is small potatoes. Look how popular the thread about it is! :) Most Americans, no matter which way the lean couldn't care less about it. On the other hand, people are very familiar with Rush and any scandal involving him would certainly be bigger news.

But the fact is... this was reported in the media. That's how you know about it. :)

[uberjoe]

The Air America story is small potatoes. Most Americans, no matter which way the lean couldn't care less about it. On the other hand, people are very familiar with Rush and any scandal involving him would certainly be bigger news.

Exactly. Rush has what, millions of listeners? Air America has maybe a dozen, and that's including the production crew. No one gives a crap about Air America, so something happening to it is simply not that interesting to the general public.

But the fact is... this was reported in the media. That's how you know about it. :)

So incredibly true. People always say: "I heard about A, but why haven't I heard about B"? Well, apparently you did.

[mosquitobite]

It wasn't reported by the media's mentioned as being on the "left". If Rush had been investigated it would still be reported by the outlets on the right.

Since when is almost a million small potatoes?

[wmansir]

We are discussing the main stream media, not internet sites like Drudge and Newsmax.com.

I just searched LA Times, Washington Post, and NYTimes for the term "air america" and didn't find the story.

[classicman2]

Not to continue the argument whether NPR has a liberal bias or not - just one question.

Name one conservative reporter (politically personality) on NPR.

[JasonF]

Name one conservative reporter (politically personality) on NPR.

David Brooks.

What do I win?

[Groucho]

David Brooks.

What do I win?One of the following, courtesy of classicman2:

a) A non-reply

b) A glib dismissal

[uberjoe]

One of the following, courtesy of classicman2:

a) A non-reply

b) A glib dismissal

:lol:

[mosquitobite]

I don't listen to NPR at all. How many reporters are UN-biased (If I'm asking the lefties on the board) and how many lean left if I'm asking the others. :lol:

[classicman2]

o.k. - name two. ;)

[classicman2]

One of the following, courtesy of classicman2:

a) A non-reply

b) A glib dismissal

Instead of what is expected from you - 1. a lame attempt to make a joke, failing miserably at the attempt, or a ridiculous reply.

[uberjoe]

Instead of what is expected from you - 1. a lame attempt to make a joke, failing miserably at the attempt, or a ridiculous reply.

You've been cranky as of late.

[mosquitobite]

I think he needs a hug :sad:

[JasonF]

o.k. - name two. ;)

David Brooks and Douglas Kmiec.

I wonder where the goalpost will move to next? :)

[uberjoe]

David Brooks and Douglas Kmiec.

I wonder where the goalpost will move to next? :)

rotfl

[DodgingCars]

Since when is almost a million small potatoes?

How many posts does the DVDTalk thread have. Again, do people really care about this -- except for maybe a few hardcore conservatives that need something else to hate Air America for?

[DodgingCars]

David Brooks and Douglas Kmiec.

I wonder where the goalpost will move to next? :)

Besides, what's the point of this exercise anyway? Most journalists are socially-liberal (or liberal leaning). The question is... how much does their ideology affect their reporting of the news?

[DodgingCars]

It wasn't reported by the media's mentioned as being on the "left". If Rush had been investigated it would still be reported by the outlets on the right.


And this is because the liberal media is out to protect Air America?

[Myster X]

I'm still trying to find out if liberals are raised at home or sprout from academia.

[OldDude]

I don't listen to NPR at all. How many reporters are UN-biased (If I'm asking the lefties on the board) and how many lean left if I'm asking the others. :lol:

Well, the "balanced programs" from NPR cited above, I have to turn them off so my blood pressure doesn't blow out my plumbing, but then, I'm pretty conservative.

[DodgingCars]

Well, the "balanced programs" from NPR cited above, I have to turn them off so my blood pressure doesn't blow out my plumbing, but then, I'm pretty conservative.

Can you give me an example of how Morning Edition or All Things Considered raise your blood pressure?

[classicman2]

Question: How often does David Brooks or Douglas Kmeick appear on NPR?

Fox has liberals that appear on the channel all the time. They have one that appears every week night during prime time. Does that fact make Fox any less conservative?

[classicman2]

The New York Times has conservative columinists. Does that make The New York Times any less liberal?

Hell - even The Atlanatic Journal Constitution may have a conservative columnist or two.

[Goldblum]

no, they're dead.


-wink-
:lol:

[classicman2]

A list of on-air personalities and staff for NPR.

K
Carrie Kahn Reporter, National Desk, Culver City, CA

Rick Karr Contributing Correspondent

Carl Kasell Newscaster; Judge, Wait Wait... Don't Tell Me!

Sheilah Kast Newscaster, PBS/NPR Newsbriefs

Martin Kaste Reporter, National Desk, Seattle

Michele Kelemen Correspondent, Diplomacy, Foreign Desk

Mary Louise Kelly Correspondent, Intelligence, Foreign Desk

Peter Kenyon Foreign Correspondent, Jerusalem

Jay Kernis Senior Vice President for Programming

David Kestenbaum Correspondent, Science Desk

Allison Keyes Reporter, News & Notes with Ed Gordon, NY

Beverly Kirk Newscaster, PBS/NPR Newsbriefs

Kevin Kling Commentator, All Things Considered

Kevin Klose President and CEO

Bruce Kluger Commentators, All Things Considered

Richard Knox Correspondent, Science Desk

Andrew Kohut Commentator

Elaine Korry Reporter, National Desk, San Francisco

Anthony Kuhn Foreign Reporter, London
________________

I don't see the name Kmeic listed there. Perhaps he's on one of the local stations of NPR.

[Goldblum]

Oh, what Drudge probably won't mention:

“In the four years before John Roberts argued Bray vs. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic in front of the Supreme Court, anti-choice radicals were responsible for at least 48 bombings and arsons in 24 states, along with 57 acid attacks, more than 4,000 disruptive acts such as bomb threats, harassing calls and hate mail,” said Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America. “I want to be very clear that we are not suggesting Mr. Roberts condones or supports clinic violence. I’m sure he finds bombings and murder abhorrent. But still his ideological view of the law compelled him to go out of his way to argue on behalf of someone like Michael Bray, who had already been convicted of a string of bombings.”
Nor should he mention it, considering that Robert's opinion had nothing to do with bombings. He simply said the protesters couldn't be accountable under a federal anti-discrimination statute. Why? Because they were not discriminating. They were not just stopping women from entering; they were stopping everyone. Roberts felt they were trespassers, just not discriminators.

Additionally, the case was affirmed by the Supreme Court 6-3, including a vote in favor by Miss O'Connor.

[General Zod]

Just look at the "biggies" in Media and it becomes clear. Since Peter Jennings just passed away i'll start by picking on him :)

On January 22, 1993, Peter Jennings of ABC News reported on Bill Clinton's first initiative as President, "President Clinton keeps his word on abortion rights. President Clinton kept a promise today on the 20th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion. Mr. Clinton signed presidential memoranda rolling back many of the restrictions imposed by his predecessors."

President George W. Bush, in his first initiative, reversed a Clinton policy and cut off federal funds that go to international organizations that counsel abortion. How did Jennings handle George W. Bush's first executive action? "One of the president's first actions was designed to appeal to anti-abortion conservatives. The president signed an order reinstating a Reagan-era policy that prohibited federal funding of family planning groups that provided abortion counseling services overseas."

Tom Brokaw on Clinton's first said "Today, President Clinton kept a campaign promise and it came on the 20th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade legalizing abortion.", and on Bush's first said "We'll begin with the new president's very active day, which started on a controversial note."

Can't leave out Dan Rather can I? This is what he said of Clinton's first "On the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade, President Clinton fulfills a promise, supporting abortion rights. It was 20 years ago today, the United States Supreme Court handed down its landmark abortion rights ruling, and the controversy hasn't stopped since. Today, with the stroke of a pen, President Clinton delivered on his campaign promise to cancel several anti-abortion regulations of the Reagan-Bush years.", and Bush's "This was President Bush's first day at the office and he did something to quickly please the right flank in his party: He reinstituted an anti-abortion policy that had been in place during his father's term and the Reagan presidency but was lifted during the Clinton years."

Get it? President Bill Clinton "keeps his word," "kept a campaign promise," "fulfills a promise." And despite the controversial nature of abortion, none of the anchors called Clinton's move "controversial," almost as if any fair-minded, responsible person would have done the same thing.
But in Bush's case, the anchor's tones appear almost prosecutorial. Bush didn't "keep a campaign promise." No, Bush acted "to appeal to anti-abortion conservatives," "to quickly please the right flank in his party," and he "started on a controversial note."

Yes, i've posted this before. In my opinion it illustrates the problem quite well, and it hasn't changed much in the years since this was written.

[mosquitobite]

:up: General Zod!

hey tell KB to email me!

[DodgingCars]

Apparently there is something wrong, and I can't quote posts. But in response to Classicman's list...

Those are not all of NPRs staff and on-air personalities. It doesn't even list the hosts of Morning Edition and All Things Considered: Michele Norris, Steve Inskeep (or Steven Skeep?), Linda Worthheimer, etc.

Where'd you get the list?

[classicman2]

http://www.npr.org/templates/people/

[DodgingCars]

General Zod,

So, because Larry Elder (a self-proclaimed conservative) points out (without sources) that news anchors reported a similar story 2 different ways... there is a big liberal media conspiracy?

And why didn't you say you got this from Larry Elder's site?

[DodgingCars]

Ok. Nevermind. I see that you just had the Ks. That confused me... I thought that seemed like a small staff. :)

[classicman2]

Do you designate the site you got the information from on every post you make?

[DodgingCars]

If I posted something like that, yes I would. It makes it look like it was something he wrote. If I copy and pasted something, I most certainly would give the url.

[wmansir]

Nor should he mention it, considering that Robert's opinion had nothing to do with bombings. He simply said the protesters couldn't be accountable under a federal anti-discrimination statute. Why? Because they were not discriminating. They were not just stopping women from entering; they were stopping everyone. Roberts felt they were trespassers, just not discriminators.

Additionally, the case was affirmed by the Supreme Court 6-3, including a vote in favor by Miss O'Connor.

Actually, O'Connor dissented. You can read it here (http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/90-985.ZD1.html).

[General Zod]

General Zod,

So, because Larry Elder (a self-proclaimed conservative) points out (without sources) that news anchors reported a similar story 2 different ways... there is a big liberal media conspiracy?

And why didn't you say you got this from Larry Elder's site?
Every other time i've posted it i've linked his site and nobody seemed to care where it came from, and besides I edited this from his origional one a little bit. He jumps around too much on his, or at least I think so. I talk about Larry on here a lot, it shouldn't surprise anyone I go to his site often for reference.

And I think the point is that these aren't just news anchors - these are THE top 3 news anchors. When this was written most everyone who watched TV news was watching one of these 3 guys. So everyone was getting news with a bit of a liberal slant, and so it goes today. Please also don't throw in words like "conspiracy" like it's something I said. I don't think it's a conspiracy to overthrow one party or another, but I do indeed think it exists and is still extremly rampant in big media. I was merely posting examples of such.

[cruzness]

maybe we should poke em with a stick? You know, just to be sure.

I'm ready for a third party anyway...one that's willing to tell the corporations and the lobbyists to fuck off and actually represent the people.

Hell Yeah!

[kbmagic]

:up: General Zod!

hey tell KB to email me!

/start Hijack

Heya Skeeter! I've misplaced your email ... (getting old..I keep losing things!) How the heck are ya?? How's married life treating you?

/End of Hijack

[mosquitobite]

:offtopic:

Doing great! :) Married life is great (with a great guy!) :lol:

I think I emailed your old Gmail account that you emailed me from last year a week or so ago. Do you still have that account? So, did you stay or did you go at the SWC?

:offtopic:

[Draven]

I'm wondering...if liberal is a bad word, is there any way to NOT be a conservative without having to defend yourself?

It seems like the conservatives on this board want everyone to think about the world in exactly the same way they do. As a liberal, I've never asked for that. Mostly, I'd like to see compromise.

Back to the topic at hand, I've said it before but when I worked in the newsworld, my station did everything possible to get both sides of the story. More often than not, the "conservative" side refused to speak to us. We did our best though.

There are bad reporters in the world. Just like there are bad doctors, lawyers, waitresses, construction workers, etc. To paint everyone in the industry with the same brush is colossally unfair, but not unexpected here in the Otter.

[classicman2]

As a liberal, I've never asked for that. Mostly, I'd like to see compromise.

I thought you were a libertarian?

[Draven]

I thought you were a libertarian?

Eh, it varies :)

[classicman2]

It's good to know that being a liberal you believe in the social welfare state. ;)

[VinVega]

Do you designate the site you got the information from on every post you make?
Yes. We can't all be coy like some of the members of this forum. :lol:

But, if the c-man posts it, I'll usually accept it as fact. He does represent CNN (Classicman News Network). ;)

[Dead]

And this is because the liberal media is out to protect Air America?

In the sense of a formal BLM Conspiracy, I suspect that few people actually think one exists. So, I do NOT believe that the liberal media is conspiring to protect Air America. At the same time, I hadn't heard anything about it from the TV news media (actually, everything I know about it came from here). That makes me suspect they aren't saying very much about it... which may actually be reasonable given the size/impact of AA. OTOH, I do suspect that if AA was a far right organization that it would be under greater scrutiny by the media due to the liberal leanings of the majority of newspeople.

[Red Dog]

One of the following, courtesy of classicman2:

a) A non-reply

b) A glib dismissal


Yes. We can't all be coy like some of the members of this forum. :lol:


This thread was very entertaining to read through. :lol:

[tdirgins]

Fox News...both sides...Stop, you're killing me! :lol:

[dick_grayson]

saw this on the Daily Show:

http://www.comedycentral.com/sitewide/media_player/play.jhtml?itemId=17016&poppedFrom=_videos_index.jhtml&


Daily Show: Headlines - War on Terrour
England is engaged in a war on terror, or as they call it, "the global row against roustabouts."

[island007]

I'm wondering...if liberal is a bad word, is there any way to NOT be a conservative without having to defend yourself?

It seems like the conservatives on this board want everyone to think about the world in exactly the same way they do. As a liberal, I've never asked for that. Mostly, I'd like to see compromise.

Back to the topic at hand, I've said it before but when I worked in the newsworld, my station did everything possible to get both sides of the story. More often than not, the "conservative" side refused to speak to us. We did our best though.

There are bad reporters in the world. Just like there are bad doctors, lawyers, waitresses, construction workers, etc. To paint everyone in the industry with the same brush is colossally unfair, but not unexpected here in the Otter.


I see the exact opposite from you.
I find the most understanding and compromising individuals on this board to be the Libertarians and then the Conservatives.

[General Zod]

There are bad reporters in the world. Just like there are bad doctors, lawyers, waitresses, construction workers, etc. To paint everyone in the industry with the same brush is colossally unfair, but not unexpected here in the Otter.
It's not us. It's the very same people who are in the industry. It's the people that have worked for ABC, CBS, and NBC that have come clean and admitted that there is indeed liberal bias in all these media corporate giants. And now, this thread, is the N.Y. times coming clean. A few months ago an editor from the L.A. Times came clean. It's time to face it.. the very people that are in the industry are admitting there is a problem. As to your "To paint everyone in the industry.." line, you know darn well nobody is saying it's "Everyone". In 1996, a survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61 percent liberal, 9 percent conservative. So, to make sure it's crystal clear for you, it's not everyone - but it's most. I've also posted it's not a "conspiracy" or anything like that, I just think that's the ebb and flow of the way things are at right now.