How To Identify Liberal Media Bias [Archive]

Pendragon_6

07-12-2005, 04:16 PM

Sometimes liberal bias reflects a conscious choice by the reporter or editor. Sometimes it stems from mere laziness; it can take a lot of work to produce balanced news stories on a consistent basis. And a reporter under deadline pressure may just not understand the conservative viewpoint well enough to explain it in his story. So if the conservative expert he called doesn't call back in time, that perspective won't make it into the story.

-snip-

As you read, listen and watch news stories you probably already notice stories that you think are biased. To see if they really are biased, you need to determine if the story falls into at least one of several forms in which bias occurs:

Types of Bias: Descriptions and Examples of Each

Bias by commission

Bias by omission

Bias by story selection

Bias by placement

Bias by the selection of sources

Bias by spin

Bias by labeling

Bias by policy endorsement or condemnation

More Than One Type in a Single Story

What Isn’t Bias

Identifying & Documenting Bias in News Stories (sample transcripts analyzed)

In Full
Media Research (http://www.mediaresearch.org/books/identifybias.asp)

Warlady

07-12-2005, 05:05 PM

Pendragon this is one of the best articles I've ever read. I am going to have to buy that book.

From the article:

This is the most common form of bias. Within the space or time limit constraining them, reporters are supposed to provide roughly equal time to presenting the best arguments of both sides of an issue. If liberals say "A" and conservatives "B," then the story should summarize both perspectives. For example, liberals cite government statistics to show that during the 1980s the rich got tax breaks while the middle class and poor paid more taxes. Conservatives, on the other hand, contend federal figures demonstrate that the rich paid more of federal tax receipts as everyone else paid less. Who's correct? A properly done story would recite the figures and analysis behind both views, so that a news consumer could make up his own mind about which perspective makes more sense.

If the reporter presents only one perspective or passes along only the "facts" espoused by liberals without any acknowledgment that conservatives disagree, then he has committed bias by commission.

Some examples of "facts" espoused by liberals and passed on by the media that conservatives know don't stand up to scrutiny: that the Reagan and Bush Administrations cut funding for social programs (when in fact social spending rose dramatically in both administrations); that the rich grew richer and the poor grew poorer during the Reagan years (when all income groups grew richer); and that there are three million homeless people in the United States (when every reputable study places the number well under one million). Still, that doesn't dissuade reporters. Just after Christmas 1992, on the CBS Evening News, reporter John Roberts found "more than three million homeless in America."

In May 1993, CBS reporter Terence Smith charged: "In 1989, after nearly a decade of federal cutbacks for immunizations, the previously successful measles vaccination program broke down." A quick check by the MRC with the Centers for Disease Control revealed that spending actually rose from $32 million in 1980 to $186 million in 1990, and then up to $257 million in 1992. Some "cutbacks."

On both the local and national level reporters regularly refer to "cuts" when in fact the program was not cut -- its rate of increase was reduced. If a conservative legislator proposes increasing welfare spending 5 percent instead of the planned 7 percent, (while inflation is predicted to hold at 4 percent), that's a one percent real increase. But reporters often call it a "cut."

This is how they operate. Lies lies and more lies.

Pendragon_6

07-12-2005, 05:09 PM

M'Lady:

Liberal media bias is what turned me conservative. I suspect I'm not the only one sick of the left-wing bias, which for me invalidates anything 'they' say.

DesertFox

07-12-2005, 05:09 PM

This is a Hall of Famer.

Warlady

07-12-2005, 05:31 PM

Sure is Foxie. Pendragon, apparently you aren't alone. That's why Fox news is now the number one cable news show and if they went national they would kill the networks too.

Pendragon_6

07-12-2005, 05:46 PM

We can only hope.

Tumblehome

07-12-2005, 09:55 PM

The idea of media bias is interesting. Conservatives complain about Liberal media bias and liberals complain about corporate media. Perhaps both sides are being misled and played against one another?

TheRealLobo

07-12-2005, 10:47 PM

The idea of media bias is interesting. Conservatives complain about Liberal media bias and liberals complain about corporate media. Perhaps both sides are being misled and played against one another?

In the examples cited above, can you show where "corporate media" showed bias?

sunsettommy

03-19-2006, 01:02 PM

A good subject to show that has bias written all over it is Global Warming.

I have seen the MSM and the IPCC produce one sided news articles on the subject.So has science publications such as Science and Nature.The common deliberate exclusion of rebutting efforts by credible scientists to publish a paper.

The many misleading and outright lies they parade on America creates scientific ignorance because it is presented with an agenda.The well known omissions and objections(to us skeptics) against the issue are often ignored when posting a news article on Global Warming in the MSM.

Then I have seen efforts by the "other side" try to make their objections known in the same arena only to be rebuffed most of the time.Then when those objectors use secondary outlets they get picked on for it.The demonization that get for possibly being connected to some energy company.The automatic disavowal of their skeptical position because of that connection.

Americans then have no idea what is really understood about Global Warming since they get a heavily slanted article on the subject.The stuff of reducating americans to an ideology.The herding of ignorant people to an end.To disembowel Capitalism.

This is really a war against Capitalism.

In this forum Several of us have pointed out that there is no such Consensus on the subject of Global Warming.That was disputed by two or three members in the Science forum.We then present several lines of evidence that makes it irrefutable the fact that there is NO consensus on the issue of CO2 and Global Warming.They still dispute it with weasily words that can not make the reality of the many declarations by THOUSANDS of scientists who are not supportive of the idea that CO2 increases is the main driver of Global Warming go away.

We posted irrefutable evidence and they still do not accept it.That is a people blinded by bias.

I think that is because they are duped by the Media Bias factor and can not allow for the possibility that there are indeed THOUSANDS of Scientists who made SIGNED declarations stating their opposition to the Global Warming Theory and what it spawned,the much ballyhooed Kyoto Treaty.

Anyone wanting a consensus or to forment one on the Global Warming theory is pushing a political agenda.A classic liberal game.

Real science THRIVES on skepticism.It is a valid way to TEST the published science papers to see if it survives the challenges given to it.

Testable or falsesifiable?

Consensus is anti science.

The "Hockey Stick" paper is a prime example of a shoddy review process and their subsequent responses to valid rebuttals given to it.It is instructive to say that their loud and nasty defense of such a rotten paper shows their unwillingness to allow the process of science to handle it properly.

Extreme Bias makes people miss what is really true.

Republican_Legion

03-19-2006, 01:38 PM

HomeschoolrsRUs

03-19-2006, 01:43 PM

Another GREAT book on this topic: Weapons of Mass Distortion: The Coming Meltdown of the Liberal Media by Brent Bozell

sunsettommy

03-19-2006, 02:14 PM

A couple of years ago I didnt know there was such thing as media bias until Dan Rathers fake story about Iraq. Since then I dont watch '60 minute lies' or anyother news segment on CBS,NBC,MSNBC,CNN,CBC,BBC and PBS.

So I was once a victim of media bias and a frequent viewer of '60 minutes' until I realised it was '60 minute lies'

Unfortunately way too many people are suckers for obvious lies and distortions.

I also boycott all those editorially biased and slanted "newshows".

Why not just call it deliberate fiction?

Maggie_T

03-19-2006, 03:36 PM

Another GREAT book on this topic: Weapons of Mass Distortion: The Coming Meltdown of the Liberal Media by Brent Bozell

I read that, sis. And I strongly recommend it.

HomeschoolrsRUs

03-19-2006, 03:42 PM

Sis,
You and I seem to be interested in many of the same books -- we're going to have to exchange lists and recommendations, LOL.

Beowulf

03-19-2006, 04:15 PM

Detecting Liberal bias in the media is easy. Just look for the reporter/anchorperson moving their lips.

Maggie_T

03-19-2006, 07:46 PM

Sis,
You and I seem to be interested in many of the same books -- we're going to have to exchange lists and recommendations, LOL.

Oh, I've got a list of them, all right. Right now, I'm reading David Horowitz' book about lefty loonies in academia. It's going to be slow going because I have to stop now and then to let my blood pressure go back to normal. But, hey, someone's got to do the rough work.

Let me know if you have any questions. ;)

HomeschoolrsRUs

03-19-2006, 07:50 PM

Oh, I've got a list of them, all right. Right now, I'm reading David Horowitz' book about lefty loonies in academia. It's going to be slow going because I have to stop now and then to let my blood pressure go back to normal. But, hey, someone's got to do the rough work.

Let me know if you have any questions. ;)

:thumb:

I just finished four ... the latest was Hollywood Nation: Left Coast Lies, Old Media Spin, and the New Media Revolution by James Hirsen. I want to get his other one, Tales From The Left Coast.

ANI

03-23-2006, 05:02 PM

Oh!!! I'm shocked...(teehee)

JohnSteel

03-23-2006, 05:34 PM

Sure is Foxie. Pendragon, apparently you aren't alone. That's why Fox news is now the number one cable news show and if they went national they would kill the networks too.
Fox News has done some funny business itself. A little while ago they did a special report with Brit Hume (spelling?) on church-state separation that was very one sided supporting the right-wing point of view. They even went as far as lying about court cases to support the right-wing side. And before that there was an episode of Hannity & Colmes where they had Newdow on supposedly to debate his views on church-state separation. It was very obvious from watching that they went out of their way to stack the audience against Newdow. Also there was little debate on the issue and a lot of attacks on newdow's character.

I have heard similar stories about conservative news sources. Like they didn't report that most of the Swift Vets that served on the same boat as Kerry supported his presidential candidacy. And more recently things about the husband of that woman in a coma, like he went to medical school to take care of her. Also about a doctor having right-wing political ties.

DesertFox

03-23-2006, 09:37 PM

Unfortunately, JohnSteel, it's impossible to take any of that seriously since I have read precisely the opposite about the Swift Vets and have read nothing whatever to support what you're saying about Terry Schiavo's husband.

Also unfortunately (for you), Newdow took that case to the Supreme Court on a lie -- that his little girl objected to the pledge since she didn't believe in God. In fact, his little girl did NOT object to the pledge and DOES believe in God. Newdow's character needs a whole lot of attacking before you get down to the truth about it and him. To put it plainly, he's a liar.

JohnSteel

03-24-2006, 03:47 PM

Unfortunately, JohnSteel, it's impossible to take any of that seriously since I have read precisely the opposite about the Swift Vets and have read nothing whatever to support what you're saying about Terry Schiavo's husband.
I didn't follow those closely. That's just what I have heard. It does appear that Michael Schiavo got a nursing degree however:
http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/120805SchiavoNursing.html
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0503/28/pzn.01.html
This doesn't directly adress the Swift Vets serving on the same boat as Kerry, but it does call in to question the ethics of the Swift Vets For Truth:
http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

Also unfortunately (for you), Newdow took that case to the Supreme Court on a lie -- that his little girl objected to the pledge since she didn't believe in God. In fact, his little girl did NOT object to the pledge and DOES believe in God. Newdow's character needs a whole lot of attacking before you get down to the truth about it and him. To put it plainly, he's a liar.
That's not the issue. He deserved to have his charater attacked. It's how Fox News went about it that shows bias. They went out of their way to put him in hostile territory.

bannerman

03-24-2006, 03:55 PM

JohnSteel

03-25-2006, 04:19 PM

oh gee they dont LIKE whiney aetheist pukes ...
Was there a point to that, besides making an ass of yourself?

DoctorDoom

03-25-2006, 05:12 PM

Steel, you trolling twit, how can we miss you if you won't stay away? BTW, I notified your keepers that you're using the asylum's computers again. There goes your ice cream desserts for a week.

DesertFox

03-25-2006, 08:05 PM

Dang it, Steel, you cost me the $10 I bet the Doc that you wouldn't transgress your employers' good faith again.

JohnSteel

03-25-2006, 08:55 PM

I just treat people how they treat others. If you're nice, I'll be nice. If you're not then I won't be.

sunsettommy

03-26-2006, 09:14 AM

Fox News has done some funny business itself. A little while ago they did a special report with Brit Hume (spelling?) on church-state separation that was very one sided supporting the right-wing point of view. They even went as far as lying about court cases to support the right-wing side. And before that there was an episode of Hannity & Colmes where they had Newdow on supposedly to debate his views on church-state separation. It was very obvious from watching that they went out of their way to stack the audience against Newdow. Also there was little debate on the issue and a lot of attacks on newdow's character.

I have not seen the shows you talk about.

I can however say that Atheists who make bald unsupported attacks on God will provoke a strong negative reaction.I can say that most of the audience on that show you mentioned are going to have a negative reaction to what lies Nedow will bring up.He after all lied saying his daughter objected to the pledge.The little shrimp went to all the trouble knowing he had NO PARENTAL CONSENT and CUSTODY of the daughter.

The slimeball is using his daughter as a pawn to attack a school pledge recitation.

He is a man who is tilting against GOD and using lies and hate to do it.

That is a simple definition of his character.A man who hates what he does not believe exist is a man who is one foot in the mental institution.

I have heard similar stories about conservative news sources. Like they didn't report that most of the Swift Vets that served on the same boat as Kerry supported his presidential candidacy. And more recently things about the husband of that woman in a coma, like he went to medical school to take care of her. Also about a doctor having right-wing political ties.

You will have to prove this lie to us.I know you can try since lies like this(long debunked) is all you would hear from Kerry's kind of people.

The famous photo with Kerry and the crew were used by the Kerry campaign to allege that most of the men in the photo supported his run for the White House.The fact is that only ONE did so and many of the others in writing stated they DID NOT support Kerry.

Then we have alleged claims of action in Vietnam on Kerry's part that quickly falls apart under simple fact checking.The way he rescued a buddy from the water was a distorted account on what really happened.

Does that sound like Kerry and his boys lies?

So hopefully you can see why "Conservative news sources" would not say that.It was blindingly easy to that it would be a lie.

Maybe you be more carefull in what you say?

sunsettommy

03-26-2006, 09:16 AM

Steel, you trolling twit, how can we miss you if you won't stay away? BTW, I notified your keepers that you're using the asylum's computers again. There goes your ice cream desserts for a week.

It was raspberry I am sure.

:grin:

DoctorDoom

03-26-2006, 01:25 PM

I have a razzberry for him ...

<img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/RazzFC.jpg" />

Borgia

04-11-2006, 01:55 PM

Sure is Foxie. Pendragon, apparently you aren't alone. That's why Fox news is now the number one cable news show and if they went national they would kill the networks too.

Jumping from one bias to another. All right, gotta get your preferred bias. :)

Borgia

Borgia

04-11-2006, 01:59 PM

Unfortunately, JohnSteel, it's impossible to take any of that seriously since I have read precisely the opposite about the Swift Vets and have read nothing whatever to support what you're saying about Terry Schiavo's husband.

Are you disputing the rather common knowledge that Michael Schiavo returned to school to get a nursing degree?

Also, there were numerous vets at each event in question who disavowed the SwiftBoat veterans version of events. But watching Fox you probably don't know that. And many were on other boats, not Kerry's.

Rhino

04-11-2006, 02:12 PM

How To Identify Liberal Media BiasEasy. Read it, watch it or listen to it.

Also, there were numerous vets at each event in question who disavowed the SwiftBoat veterans version of events. But watching Fox you probably don't know that. And many were on other boats, not Kerry's.I knew that, and read their accounts. I preferred the majority of those who were actually present at the events in question. On Kerrys' side, I only found one who fit that bill, and his past actions and statements didn't make him credible to me. There was also documentation.

Boy, aren't we digging up old stuff!!!! Guess the new stuff isn't interesting enough.

Borgia

04-12-2006, 08:15 AM

Easy. Read it, watch it or listen to it.

I knew that, and read their accounts. I preferred the majority of those who were actually present at the events in question. On Kerrys' side, I only found one who fit that bill, and his past actions and statements didn't make him credible to me. There was also documentation.

Boy, aren't we digging up old stuff!!!! Guess the new stuff isn't interesting enough.

Rhino, I hate to tell you this but you are misinformed. THe majority of people who were at each incident support Kerry. Sorry, you must be a Fox watcher not to already know this. :) Of course, you will probably want proof so...

Borgia

04-12-2006, 08:22 AM

Bronze Star (5 boats, 5 officers, 25 crewmen)

10 SUPPORT (Sandusky, Alston, Belodeau, Medieros, Thorson, Rassmann, Lambert, Langhofer, Droz, Russell)

5 DISPUTE (Pees, Vorphal, Thurlow, Chenoweth, O'Dell)

10 UNKNOWN (Arp, Hollister, Tryner, Wolfe, Three of Droz's crewmen, 3 of Chenoweth's crewmen)

So 10-5 they support Kerry's version of events.

Rhino

04-12-2006, 08:23 AM

Rhino

04-12-2006, 08:23 AM

Source?

Borgia

04-12-2006, 08:24 AM

Silver Star (3 boats, 3 officers, 16 crewmen)

12 SUPPORT (Belodeau, Medeiros, Sandusky, Short, Thorson, Rood, Lee, Cueva, Leeds, Droz, Gibson)

0 DISPUTE

7 UNKNOWN (5 crewmen on Droz's boat, Lamberson, Martin)

Borgia

04-12-2006, 08:34 AM

Source?

Various sources. Is there anyone in particular you question? I can source each and every one of them as I did the work a couple of years ago. Hopefully it is still there.

Borgia

04-12-2006, 08:37 AM

When at the mercy of the media, everyone is misinformed to some extent. Yes, I watch Fox, but not exclusively. When including crewmates, there was a majority for Kerry, but not all of those crewmates were present at all incidents, so I filtered accordingly. One guy even claimed to have been present at an incident that happened after he had rotatwed home and separated from the military. You can provide the 'proof' if you want, but is it necessary for 'ancient' history? I guess if Kerry runs again .......

Yeah, it is all water under the bridge at this point. Your comment on the guy who claimed to be present must be Admiral Schacte, who claimed to be there for Kerry's first purple heart yet Kerry and the two crewmembers who were there deny he was there. Schacte is hte only person present who disputes Kerry's first purple heart.

Suffice to say, the people who supported Kerry usually did not make the news, which was unfortunate.

Rhino

04-12-2006, 08:50 AM

Schacte is hte only person present who disputes Kerry's first purple heart.No, there are others, but as we have pointed out, the reporting on this is very convoluted. I suppose we could go back and forth endlessly on individual names, but it has been done here ad infinitum before, and, as we said, what's the point?

Suffice to say, the people who supported Kerry usually did not make the news, which was unfortunate.My impression was quite the opposite, but with so many counterclaims going back and forth, it was hard to keep up with who was who.

Borgia

04-12-2006, 10:11 AM

No, there are others, but as we have pointed out, the reporting on this is very convoluted. I suppose we could go back and forth endlessly on individual names, but it has been done here ad infinitum before, and, as we said, what's the point?

Nobody else that was there.

It was Kerry and two crewmates. And Schacte if you believe him over the other three. Nobody else was present but if you have the names of other eyewitnesses, feel free to provide them as I would be interested.

Rhino

04-12-2006, 10:23 AM

There were several other boats present (as you already acknowledged), the people who treated the wounds, wrote the citation, etc. I'm not really that interested in researching this all over again, so feel free to disagree with me on the basis of no links if you wish. A Google search would probably reveal quite a bit though, I would think.

Borgia

04-12-2006, 10:49 AM

There were several other boats present (as you already acknowledged), the people who treated the wounds, wrote the citation, etc.
Oh, my response on only 3 or 4 people being there was concerning the First Purple Heart. The other boats was in summary about the Bronze Star incident.

I'm not really that interested in researching this all over again, so feel free to disagree with me on the basis of no links if you wish. A Google search would probably reveal quite a bit though, I would think.

I have researched this pretty thoroughly by looking at statements by all those actually present at each event. I listed those who supported Kerry's version and those who did not. In each event, those who supported Kerry outnumbered those who did not.

To get an idea to what level the SwiftBoats vets sank, at one point one of them pointed to an AAR with the initials KJW and said that was proof that John F. Kerry authored the report. He had no response when it was pointed out that the initials were incorrect for Kerry and that the location on the report was for the person receiving the report. So much for a high level of evidence required by the Swifties in order to condemn. LOL

omegatrump

04-12-2006, 11:05 AM

Nobody else that was there.

It was Kerry and two crewmates. And Schacte if you believe him over the other three. Nobody else was present but if you have the names of other eyewitnesses, feel free to provide them as I would be interested.

Kerry, and his dope smoking buddies were probably halucinating at the time and thought they had done something heroic. Kerry is a piece of human debri.

Rhino

04-12-2006, 11:08 AM

Borgia

04-12-2006, 11:31 AM

I've also seen a list of 25 people in his unit, and only four of them supported him. There are inconsisties in the written records that support both sides as well. Again, the reports are convulted and I'm not really interested in expending a lot of effort researching what I would consider to be beating a dead horse. Sorry. Consider that a victory if you want, but I'm just not that interested.

The difference is of those 25 people "in his unit" only a fraction actually witnessed the events in question. That you prefer people who were not eyewitnesses is your choice. I'll stick with eyewitnesses instead of armchair generals as the best suited to tell me what happened at each event in question.

You also mention the written records,yet, in each record, they support Kerry. Every citation supports his version of events. At one point, a Swiftboat vet said there were no bulletholes in the boats as proof of no gunfire yet he was shown a report that explicitly mentioned three bulletholes and the swiftboat vet hemmed and hawed how they were there from a previous enagement. Funny how the story changes!

Personally, I think it is egregious for people to question a veterans medals, purple hearts and honors. I have nothing wrong with people attacking him for what he said/did when he came home from Vietnam though.

Rhino

04-12-2006, 11:42 AM

The difference is of those 25 people "in his unit" only a fraction actually witnessed the events in question.Depends on the events.

You also mention the written records,yet, in each record, they support Kerry.Not true.

Yet again, I have no interest in debating what I see as a dead issue that was previously debated ad nauseum. Maybe others would like to parry and thrust with you. I'll pass.

Borgia

04-12-2006, 02:12 PM

Rhino:

No problem, if you choose not to get into it. But I am interested in what written records of the time, rise against Kerry's depiction of events? All the citations report enemy fire. Even non-KErry citations report enemy fire and it is hard to believe they all were based off an alleged Kerry AAR since Thurlow's mentions actions occuring while Kerry was not even around to witness them so clearly someone else wrote Thurlow's Bronze Star citation with info that came from more than Kerry.

It is a dark day in America when we start questioning legally awarded medals 30 years after the fact IMO. That was an issue for the Navy to address which they did.