You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!

NY Times: A perfect example of lieberals spreading...

S3nd K3ys
... lies by omission.

Wendsday's edtion of the New York Times
had a big article about the 2000th casualty of the Iraq war.

They printed a story about a young Marine killed
last April. They found a letter to his girl friend
on his laptop.

This is what the NYT printed from the letter

''I kind of predicted this,'' Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. ''A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances.''

This is what the young man actualy said

"Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."
The whole story

Talk about leaving out the details Mad Mad
Its very clear to me that the NYT wants us to lose this war.
First of all, this isn't really a lie, they just didn't quote the whole text.

But yes, I agree, it's a typical example of American media. I wouldn't like to live in a country where the most reliable/trustable news source is 'The Daily Show'. Wink
Billy Hill
S3nd K3ys wrote:
... lies by omission.

...are still lies. It's not just the american media as you so eloquently put it bondings. Fox rarely does that sort of thing. The BBC, Reuters, AP all do it quite a bit.
Basically lots of pepole use's Propaganda to make everyone think there way and make people think one way to make something look bad.
Bondings wrote:
First of all, this isn't really a lie, they just didn't quote the whole text.

When the quote essentially contradicts the context it is most certainly a lie.

xorcist wrote:
Basically lots of pepole use's Propaganda to make everyone think there way and make people think one way to make something look bad.

thank you for that prime example of Propaganda!

FYI "Propaganda" is not exclusively pejorative
Well, I remember Blair claiming that Saddam Hussain was able to launch a weapon of mass destruction within 45 minutes. He just left out the small detail that those WMD were flies jumping out of the beard of Saddam.

That's what I call omission.

But I agree that if that quote is real (could also have been made up by conservatives), then they certainly should have used it in the article.

By my knowledge, lying is a synonym of not telling the truth. That sentence wasn't changed, and neither was the meaning of that sentence.
Billy Hill wrote:
S3nd K3ys wrote:
... lies by omission.

...are still lies. It's not just the american media as you so eloquently put it bondings. Fox rarely does that sort of thing. The BBC, Reuters, AP all do it quite a bit.

Fox rarely does what sort of thing? Lies by omission? So? Ain't Fox biased anyway? Rolling Eyes
Last year, for example, the Wall Street Journal actually ran a correction after its news pages described Fox News, accurately, as "a network sympathetic to the Bush cause and popular with Republicans."

Fox News is run by Roger Ailes, former media svengali to President George H.W. Bush, father to the Bush whose "cause" is under discussion? Or that Bob Woodward caught Ailes giving Karl Rove political advice after the 9/11 attacks? (In response, Ailes huffed, "I did not give up my American citizenship to take this job.")

Rolling EyesRolling EyesRolling Eyes
And oh wait, wasn't it someone we know who posted something about the major bias in National media...
S3nd K3ys, quoting an article in another post wrote:
"The argument over whether the national press is dominated by liberals is over. Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that sought the political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of the Washington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percent conservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be self-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996, another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61 percent liberal, 9 percent conservative."

That other post is this one.

PS: Yes, I did agree that there is major bias, perhaps more liberal bias than conservative bias, and that's why I never quoted NY Times in any of my posts, nor any other known-biased sources.

PPS: The one I quoted in the beginning of this article may be biased, but I only used it to bring forth the facts, not the biased opinions.
S3nd K3ys
Found this article this morning. I wish I could write like that!


Lisa Huang Fleischman writes to New York Times public editor Byron Calame:

Mr. Calame—I’ve never bothered to write the NY Times before, because your paper seems to make a practice of sinking to new lows every time I look, although I admit I, like many others, hardly ever look anymore. But this last was really contemptible.

Your paper profiled Cpl. Jeffrey Starr in an article about the 2000th casualty (of course). Here’s the article.

The paper quotes from a letter written by Cpl Starr to his girlfriend, found after his death by Starr’s father. The erstwhile paper of record states:

"Sifting through Corporal Starr’s laptop computer after his death, his father found a letter to be delivered to the marine’s girlfriend. ‘I kind of predicted this,’ Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. ‘A third time just seemed like I’m pushing my chances.’"

Perfectly in keeping, may I say, with the defeatist, elegiac, Vietnam-like attitude of the entire piece.

I’m sorry to say that the Times reporter dishonestly deleted the rest of the letter. Thanks to the brave corporal’s family, who forwarded the remainder of the letter to Michelle Malkin, we actually know what Corporal Starr really thought, not what the Times would like to use him to stand for.

Here’s what the rest of the letter says.

He wrote: “Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I’m writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I’m pushing my chances. I don’t regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it’s not to me. I’m here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."

(Emphasis mine—it’s the part that your reporter knowingly left out. Which only goes to show that everything—EVERYTHING—at the Times is in service of The Agenda.)

I know it just kills you guys to think that overwhelmingly our soldiers actually, consciously support the war, are perfectly aware of the dangers they face, and are as perfectly prepared to face them. I know it comforts all the Timesmen and women to think that soldiers are just sad, pathetic, barely literate dupes (when they aren’t being babykillers and Koran flushers), but in fact the soldiers view their lives as imbued with transcendent meaning, apparently something no Times reporter can claim. Maybe it’s just envy on the part of all your reporters that these American teenagers in uniform make history every day of their lives, while you all just continue to transparently twist the news and to accumulate contempt from the American people, which is now compounding at a daily rate.

Incidentally, I was a reserve army officer for twelve years. Sad, pathetic dupe that I am, I graduated Berkeley and Columbia Law School. (I understand you have a few Columbia J-School grads among your staff. Too bad. Everyone on campus knew that only the really dumb kids ended up in the J-School.)

(In my best Kelso voice... "burrrnnn!" Very Happy
S3nd K3ys
lib wrote:
Fox rarely does what sort of thing? Lies by omission? So? Ain't Fox biased anyway? ...

Come on, lib, you didn't honestly think I'd let you get away with that, did you? Wink

It's common knowledge that the media are much more biased to the liberal side than the conservative side.

Fox is not nearly as biased as CBS, NBC, BBC, AP, Reuters, ABC, and most of the other big wigs. I've seen Fox blast Republicans nearly as much as I've seen them blast Democrats. Fox doesn't get all happy and giddy when things like 2,000 deaths in Iraq or car bombs killing kids happens like CNN does.

If you want to get into pissing match over posting proof of liberal bias, you'll lose. Badly.

Here's a very small sample...

The Media Elite

In 1981, S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman of Smith College, released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at the most influential national media outlets — including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS — on their political attitudes and voting patterns. Results of this study of the “media elite” were included in the October/November 1981 issue of Public Opinion, published by the American Enterprise Institute, in the article “Media and Business Elites.” The data demonstrated that journalists and broadcasters hold liberal positions on a wide range of social and political issues. This study, which was more elaborately presented in Lichter and Rothman’s subsequent book, The Media Elite, became the most widely quoted media study of the 1980s and remains a landmark today.


* 81 percent of the journalists interviewed voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election between 1964 and 1976.

* In the Democratic landslide of 1964, 94 percent of the press surveyed voted for President Lyndon Johnson (D) over Senator Barry Goldwater (R).

* In 1968, 86 percent of the press surveyed voted for Democrat Senator Hubert Humphrey.

* In 1972, when 62 percent of the electorate chose President Richard Nixon, 81 percent of the media elite voted for liberal Democratic Senator George McGovern.

* In 1976, the Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter, captured the allegiance of 81 percent of the reporters surveyed while a mere 19 percent cast their ballots for President Gerald Ford.

* Over the 16-year period, the Republican candidate always received less than 20 percent of the media elite’s vote.

* Lichter and Rothman’s survey of journalists discovered that “Fifty-four percent placed themselves to the left of center, compared to only 19 percent who chose the right side of the spectrum.”

* “Fifty-six percent said the people they worked with were mostly on the left, and only 8 percent on the right — a margin of seven-to-one.”

“Even self-described liberals agree: 41 percent see the media as liberal, compared to only 22 percent who find the news to be conservative.”

“These findings challenge the argument of some journalists that bias is purely in the eye of the beholder. Although conservatives are three times more likely to see liberal rather than conservative bias, moderates and liberals alike see liberal bias in the media twice as often as they see conservative bias,” CMPA concluded.

The Gallup Organization

Since 2001, Gallup has polled American adults on the question: “Now thinking for a moment about the news media: In general, do you think the news media is [sic] too liberal, just about right, or too conservative.” For four consecutive years, the number of Americans saying the media are too liberal has outnumbered those seeing a pro-conservative bias by at least a three-to-one margin.


* In September 2004, three times as many Americans said that the media are too liberal (48%) than said the media are too conservative (15%).

* Since 2001, the percentage saying the media are too liberal has ranged from 45 percent to 48 percent; the percentage seeing the media as too conservative has never exceeded 15 percent.

* Also in 2004, when asked “how much trust and confidence do you have in the mass media,” 55 percent told Gallup that they had “not very much” or “none at all.”

Admissions of Liberal Bias

“There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it’s very dangerous. That’s different from the media doing it’s job of challenging the exercise of power without fear or favor.”
— ABC News White House correspondent Terry Moran talking with Los Angeles-based national radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt, May 17, 2005.

“I believe it is true that a significant chunk of the press believes that Democrats are incompetent but good-hearted, and Republicans are very efficient but evil.”
— Wall Street Journal political editor John Harwood on the April 23, 2005 Inside Washington.

“I worked for the New York Times for 25 years. I could probably count on one hand, in the Washington bureau of the New York Times, people who would describe themselves as people of faith....I think one of the real built-in biases in the media is towards secularism....You want diversity in the newsroom, not because of some quota, but because you have to have diversity to cover the story well and cover all aspects of a society. And you don’t have religious people making the decisions about where coverage is focused. And I think that’s one of the faults.”
— Former New York Times reporter Steve Roberts, now a journalism professor at George Washington University, on CNN’s Reliable Sources, March 27, 2005.

“Personally, I have a great affection for CBS News....But I stopped watching it some time ago. The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me. I still check in, but less and less frequently. I increasingly drift to NBC News and Fox and MSNBC.”
— Former CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter in an op-ed published January 13, 2005 in the Los Angeles Times.

Joe Scarborough: “Is there a liberal bias in the media or is the bias towards getting the story first and getting the highest ratings, therefore, making the most money?”
Former ABC 20/20 anchor Hugh Downs: “Well, I think the latter, by far. And, of course, when the word ‘liberal’ came to be a pejorative word, you began to wonder, you have to say that the press doesn’t want to be thought of as merely liberal. But people tend to be more liberated in their thought when they are closer to events and know a little more about what the background of what’s happening. So, I suppose, in that respect, there is a liberal, if you want to call it a bias. The press is a little more in touch with what’s happening.”
— MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, January 10, 2005.

“Does anybody really think there wouldn’t have been more scrutiny if this [CBS’s bogus 60 Minutes National Guard story] had been about John Kerry?”
— Former 60 Minutes Executive Producer Don Hewitt at a January 10, 2005 meeting at CBS News, as quoted later that day by Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball.

“The notion of a neutral, non-partisan mainstream press was, to me at least, worth holding onto. Now it’s pretty much dead, at least as the public sees things. The seeds of its demise were sown with the best of intentions in the late 1960s, when the AMMP [American Mainstream Media Party] was founded in good measure (and ironically enough) by CBS. Old folks may remember the moment: Walter Cronkite stepped from behind the podium of presumed objectivity to become an outright foe of the war in Vietnam. Later, he and CBS’s star White House reporter, Dan Rather, went to painstaking lengths to make Watergate understandable to viewers, which helped seal Richard Nixon’s fate as the first President to resign. The crusades of Vietnam and Watergate seemed like a good idea at the time, even a noble one, not only to the press but perhaps to a majority of Americans. The problem was that, once the AMMP declared its existence by taking sides, there was no going back. A party was born.”
— Newsweek’s chief political reporter, Howard Fineman, “The ‘Media Party’ is over: CBS’ downfall is just the tip of the iceberg,” January 11 , 2005.

“Most members of the establishment media live in Washington and New York. Most of them don’t drive pickup trucks, most of them don’t have guns, most of them don’t go to NASCAR, and every day we’re not out in areas that care about those things and deal with those things as part of their daily lives, we are out of touch with a lot of America and with a lot of America that supports George W. Bush.”
— ABC News Political Director Mark Halperin during live television coverage immediately before John Kerry’s concession speech on November 3, 2004.

“I know a lot of you believe that most people in the news business are liberal. Let me tell you, I know a lot of them, and they were almost evenly divided this time. Half of them liked Senator Kerry; the other half hated President Bush.”
— CBS’s Andy Rooney on the November 7, 2004 60 Minutes.

“There’s one other base here: the media. Let’s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards — I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox, but — they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, there’s going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points.”
— Newsweek’s Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, July 10, 2004.

The Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz: “You’ve said on the program Inside Washington that because of the portrayal of Kerry and Edwards as ‘young and dynamic and optimistic,’ that that’s worth maybe 15 points.”
Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: “Stupid thing to say. It was completely wrong. But I do think that, I do think that the mainstream press, I’m not talking about the blogs and Rush and all that, but the mainstream press favors Kerry. I don’t think it’s worth 15 points. That was just a stupid thing to say.”
Kurtz: “Is it worth five points?”
Thomas: “Maybe, maybe.”
— Exchange on CNN’s Reliable Sources, October 17, 2004.

Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham: “The work of the evening, obviously, is to connect George W. Bush to the great war leaders of the modern era. You’re going to hear about Churchill projecting power against public opinion....”
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews: “But Iraq was a popular cause when he first started it. It wasn’t like Churchill speaking against the Nazis.”
Meacham: “That’s not the way the Republican Party sees it. They think that all of us and the New York Times are against them.”
Matthews: “Well, they’re right about the New York Times, and they may be right about all of us.”
— Exchange shortly after 8:30pm EDT during MSNBC’s live convention coverage, August 30, 2004.

“Of course it is....These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you’ve been reading the paper with your eyes closed.”
— New York Times Public Editor Daniel Okrent in a July 25, 2004 column which appeared under a headline asking, “Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?”

“Like every other institution, the Washington and political press corps operate with a good number of biases and predilections. They include, but are not limited to, a near-universal shared sense that liberal political positions on social issues like gun control, homosexuality, abortion, and religion are the default, while more conservative positions are ‘conservative positions.’...”
“The press, by and large, does not accept President Bush’s justifications for the Iraq war....It does not accept the proposition that the Bush tax cuts helped the economy....It remains fixated on the unemployment rate....The worldview of the dominant media can be seen in every frame of video and every print word choice that is currently being produced about the presidential race.”
— From the February 10, 2004 edition of’s “The Note,” a daily political memo assembled by ABC News political director Mark Halperin and his staff.

Jack Cafferty: “Can you say liberal? And the liberal talk radio station Air America debuts today....The question is, does America need additional ‘liberal’ media outlets?...”
Bill Hemmer: “I think it’s a good question....Why hasn’t a liberal radio station or TV network never taken off before?”
Cafferty: “We have them. Are you, did you just get off a vegetable truck from the South Bronx? They’re everywhere....What do they call this joint? The Clinton News Network?”
— Exchange on CNN’s American Morning, March 31, 2004.

“I think most claims of liberal media bias are overblown. At the same time, I do think that reporters often let their cultural predilections drive their coverage of social issues, and the coverage of the gay marriage amendment offers a perfect example....Why do reporters assume that the amendment is a fringe concern? Perhaps because nearly all live in big cities, among educated, relatively affluent peers, who hold liberal views on social matters. In Washington and New York, gay marriage is an utterly mainstream proposition. Unfortunately, in most of the country, it’s not.”
— New Republic Senior Editor Jonathan Chait,, March 1, 2004.

“Where I work at ABC, people say ‘conservative’ the way people say ‘child molester.’”
— ABC 20/20 co-anchor John Stossel to reporter Robert Bluey, in a story posted January 28, 2004.

“I think they [most reporters] are on the humane side, and that would appear to many to be on the liberal side. A lot of newspaper people — and to a lesser degree today, the TV people — come up through the ranks, through the police-reporting side, and they see the problems of their fellow man, beginning with their low salaries — which newspaper people used to have anyway — and right on through their domestic quarrels, their living conditions. The meaner side of life is made visible to most young reporters. I think it affects their sentimental feeling toward their fellow man and that is interpreted by some less-sensitive people as being liberal.”
— Former CBS Evening News anchor Walter Cronkite to Time magazine’s Richard Zoglin in an interview published in the magazine’s November 3, 2003 edition.

“I thought he [former CBS News correspondent Bernard Goldberg] made some very good points. There is just no question that I, among others, have a liberal bias. I mean, I’m consistently liberal in my opinions. And I think some of the, I think Dan [Rather] is transparently liberal. Now, he may not like to hear me say that. I always agree with him, too, but I think he should be more careful.”
— CBS’s 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney on Goldberg’s book, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News, on CNN’s Larry King Live, June 5, 2002.

“Most of the time I really think responsible journalists, of which I hope I’m counted as one, leave our bias at the side of the table. Now it is true, historically in the media, it has been more of a liberal persuasion for many years. It has taken us a long time, too long in my view, to have vigorous conservative voices heard as widely in the media as they now are. And so I think yes, on occasion, there is a liberal instinct in the media which we need to keep our eye on, if you will.”
— ABC anchor Peter Jennings appearing on CNN’s Larry King Live, April 10, 2002

“[Journalists] have a certain worldview based on being in Manhattan...that isn’t per se liberal, but if you look at people there, they lean’ in that direction.”
— Columbia Journalism Review publisher David Laventhol, as reported in “Leaning on the Media” by Mark Jurkowitz, The Boston Globe, January 17, 2002.

“There is a liberal bias. It’s demonstrable. You look at some statistics. About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time. There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, among the editors and the so-called infrastructure, there is a liberal bias. There is a liberal bias at Newsweek, the magazine I work for — most of the people who work at Newsweek live on the upper West Side in New York and they have a liberal bias....[ABC White House reporter] Brit Hume’s bosses are liberal and they’re always quietly denouncing him as being a right-wing nut.”
— Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas on Inside Washington, May 12, 1996.

“Everybody knows that there’s a liberal, that there’s a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents.....Anybody who has to live with the people, who covers police stations, covers county courts, brought up that way, has to have a degree of humanity that people who do not have that exposure don’t have, and some people interpret that to be liberal. It’s not a liberal, it’s humanitarian and that’s a vastly different thing.”
— Former CBS anchor Walter Cronkite at the March 21, 1996 Radio & TV Correspondents Dinner.

“There are lots of reasons fewer people are watching network news, and one of them, I’m more convinced than ever, is that our viewers simply don’t trust us. And for good reason. The old argument that the networks and other `media elites’ have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it’s hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don’t sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we’re going to slant the news. We don’t have to. It comes naturally to most reporters.....Mr. Engberg’s report set new standards for bias....Can you imagine, in your wildest dreams, a network news reporter calling Hillary Clinton’s health care plan ‘wacky?’...
“‘Reality Check’ suggests the viewers are going to get the facts. And then they can make up their mind. As Mr. Engberg might put it: ‘Time Out!’ You’d have a better chance of getting the facts someplace else — like Albania.”
— CBS reporter Bernard Goldberg on an anti-flat tax story by CBS reporter Eric Engberg, February 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed.

“I think this is another reflection of the overwhelming journalistic tilt towards liberalism and those programs. Now, the question is whether that’s bad or not, and that’s another debate. But the idea that many of us, and my colleagues deny that there is this kind of bias is nuts, because there is in our world — I forget what the surveys show, but most of us are Democratic and probably most of us line up in the fairly liberal world.”
— Time Washington contributing editor Hugh Sidey responding to a caller who asked if journalists are in favor of affirmative action, July 21, 1995 C-SPAN Washington Journal.

“As much as we try to think otherwise, when you’re covering someone like yourself, and your position in life is insecure, she’s your mascot. Something in you roots for her. You’re rooting for your team. I try to get that bias out, but for many of us it’s there.”
— Time Senior Writer Margaret Carlson quoted in The Washington Post, March 7, 1994.

“I think liberalism lives — the notion that we don’t have to stay where we are as a society, we have promises to keep, and it is liberalism, whether people like it or not, which has animated all the years of my life. What on Earth did conservatism ever accomplish for our country? It was people who wanted to change things for the better.”
— Charles Kuralt talking with Morley Safer on the CBS special, One for the Road with Charles Kuralt, May 5, 1994.

“I won’t make any pretense that the ‘American Agenda’ [segments on World News Tonight] is totally neutral. We do take a position. And I think the public wants us now to take a position. If you give both sides and ‘Well, on the one hand this and on the other that’ — I think people kind of really want you to help direct their thinking on some issues.”
— ABC News reporter Carole Simpson on CNBC’s Equal Time, August 9, 1994.

“I think we are aware, as everybody who works in the media is, that the old stereotype of the liberal bent happens to be true, and we’re making a concerted effort to really look for more from the other, without being ponderous or lecturing or trying to convert people to another way of thinking.”
— ABC World News Tonight Executive Producer Emily Rooney, September 27, 1993 Electronic Media.

“The group of people I’ll call The Press — by which I mean several dozen political journalists of my acquaintance, many of whom the Buchanan administration may someday round up on suspicion of having Democratic or even liberal sympathies — was of one mind as the season’s first primary campaign shuddered toward its finish. I asked each of them, one after another, this question: If you were a New Hampshire Democrat, whom would you vote for? The answer was always the same; and the answer was always Clinton. In this group, in my experience, such unanimity is unprecedented....
“Almost none is due to calculations about Clinton being ‘electable’...and none at all is due to belief in Clinton’s denials in the Flowers business, because no one believes these denials. No, the real reason members of The Press like Clinton is simple, and surprisingly uncynical: they think he would make a very good, perhaps a great, President. Several told me they were convinced that Clinton is the most talented presidential candidate they have ever encountered, JFK included.”
— New Republic Senior Editor Hendrik Hertzberg, March 9, 1992 issue.

“We’re unpopular because the press tends to be liberal, and I don’t think we can run away from that. And I think we’re unpopular with a lot of conservatives and Republicans this time because the White House press corps by and large detested George Bush, probably for good and sufficient reason, they certainly can cite chapter and verse. But their real contempt for him showed through in their reporting in a way that I think got up the nose of the American people.”
— Time writer William A. Henry III on the PBS November 4, 1992 election-night special The Finish Line.

“Coverage of the campaign vindicated exactly what conservatives have been saying for years about liberal bias in the media. In their defense, journalists say that though they may have their personal opinions, as professionals they are able to correct for them when they write. Sounds nice, but I’m not buying any.”
— Former Newsweek reporter Jacob Weisberg in The New Republic, November 23, 1992 issue.

“There is no such thing as objective reporting...I’ve become even more crafty about finding the voices to say the things I think are true. That’s my subversive mission.”
— Boston Globe environmental reporter Dianne Dumanoski at an Utne Reader symposium May 17-20, 1990. Quoted by Micah Morrison in the July 1990 American Spectator.

“I do have an axe to grind...I want to be the little subversive person in television.”
— Barbara Pyle, CNN Environmental Editor and Turner Broadcasting Vice President for Environmental Policy, as quoted by David Brooks in the July 1990 American Spectator.

“I’m not sure it’s useful to include every single point of view simply in order to cover every base because you can come up with a program that’s virtually impossible for the audience to sort out.”
— PBS Senior Producer Linda Harrar commenting on PBS’s ten-part series, Race to Save The Planet, to MRC and reported in the December 1990 MediaWatch.

“As the science editor at Time I would freely admit that on this issue we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.”
— Time Science Editor Charles Alexander at a September 16, 1989 global warming conference at the Smithsonian Institution as quoted by David Brooks in an October 5, 1989 Wall Street Journal column.

“Clearly the networks have made that decision now, where you’d have to call it [global warming stories] advocacy.”
— NBC News Capitol Hill correspondent Andrea Mitchell at a September 16, 1989 global warming conference at the Smithsonian Institution as quoted by David Brooks in an October 5, 1989 Wall Street Journal column.


Top reporters, editors, producers, talk show hosts and columnists, as well as members of Congress and heads of public policy organizations receive documented proof of the media's liberal bias in the News Analysis Division's usually weekly Media Reality Check. Written by Director of Media Analysis Tim Graham and Research Director Rich Noyes, the Media Reality Check serves as an excellent reference for the most egregious examples of media bias.

2005 Archive

October 26
Morbid Networks Tout Iraq War’s “Milestone”
ABC, CBS and NBC Skip Army Soldier’s Heroics; ABC and CBS Downplay Democratic Constitution

October 17
TV’s Depressing, Defeatist Coverage of Iraq War
MRC Study: Networks Paint Dark Picture of War Effort, Emphasizing Terrorist Attacks and U.S. Deaths

September 08
Celebrating the Media's Bush-Bashing "Passion"
Journalists Refused to Tilt in America's Favor after 9/11, But Are Praised For Biased Hurricane Coverage

September 01
Preparing the Battlefield for a Roberts Ambush?
“Very Conservative” Supreme Court Pick Portrayed as a Confederate, Racist and Male Chauvinist Pig

August 23
Outraged By Pat Robertson, But Silent On Anti-American Chavez
Dictator Hugo Chavez Is Wrecking Democracy In Venezuela & Allying Himself With America-Hating Terror States Like Iran

August 16
Interested in Connected Dots or Blaming Bush?
In 2002, Network News Breathlessly Touted Charge That “Bush Knew” In Advance of 9/11 Plot

August 11
Announcing Another Way to Fight Liberal Bias
MRC Launches, an Interactive Web Log Dedicated to Exposing the Media’s Tilt

August 02
"Defiant" Bush Sends "Damaged Goods" to UN
Networks React with Indignation to Bush’s Recess Appointment, But Praised Clinton’s ‘97 “Solution”

July 19
Media Now Roast Rove, But Wouldn’t Fry Bacon
Networks Pile On With 58 Rove Stories in 10 Days, But Helped Bury Pentagon’s Abuse of Tripp in 1998

July 01
Sickening Moral Equivalence From NBC Anchor Brian Williams
Happy Fourth Of July: NBC Nightly News Suggests“The First Several U.S. Presidents Might Have Been Called Terrorists,” Just Like Ayatollah Khomeni's Radical Hostage Takers In Iran

June 29
Going Over Easy for Democrats in the Morning
Network Anchors Tenderly Offer Senators Chance to Rebut and Criticize President’s Fort Bragg Speech

June 16
Nets Target U.S. Military "Abuses," But Skip Dick Durbin's "Nazi" Rant
A Democratic Senate Senate Leader Compares American Soldiers To Pol Pot, Stalin's Gulag, and Nazis- Why Is That Not News?

June 09
PBS on Tom DeLay: Favors “Virtual Slavery”?
Replacement for Bill Moyers Is Becoming the New Poster Boy for Blatant Liberal Bias on Public TV

June 1
Anchors Gush Over Heroism of "Deep Throat"
Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and Aaron Brown Offer the Passionate Liberal Rebuttal to Mark Felt’s Critics

May 20
Ignoring Saddam's Mass Graves, Covering Undies Photo “Outrage”
Today Show Seeks Out Saddam Defense Lawyer To Express His Outrage Over Brutal Iraqi Dictator's Unfair Treatment

May 09
MRC Study: Six Times More “Conservative” than “Liberal” Labels on Network News Since Election Day
Extreme Conservatives vs. Unlabeled Liberals

April 28
Ignoring the Pro-Pope Polls of Catholics
Networks Claimed "Many Catholics" Opposed "Ultraconservative" Ratzinger, "God’s Rottweiler"

April 15
Washington Post’s Robin Givhan and Her Hair-Raising Fashion Bias
Bolton, Bush, and Cheney Hair Mocked, but Kerry Should “Gloat,” and Edwards Should be “Tousled” and “Nuzzled”

March 30
Jesse Jackson Gets No News Mojo in Supporting Terri Schiavo’s Life
Networks Unimpressed with the Liberal Reverend When He Arrives in Florida to Put a Democratic Face on the Side of Life

March 22
Slanting the News Against Terri Schiavo
ABC, CBS and NBC Evening News Coverage Favors Those Who Would Stop Feeding Disabled Woman

March 07
Good Riddance to Dan Rather’s Rotten Bias
For Decades, the Liberal CBS Anchorman Twisted the News to Help Liberals and Hurt Conservatives

February 23
CNN Anchor Helps Promote HBO’s Offensive Anti-Faith “Comedian”
Just Last Week, Maher Mouthed Off on MSNBC: “Religion Stops People From Thinking....Religion is a Neurological Disorder.”

February 18
NBC, MSNBC Find the Major Media Scandal at Talon News, Not CNN
NBC Only had 30 Words for CNN Executive Eason Jordan’s Charge That American Soldiers Murdered Journalists

February 11
Is Bush “Ripping the Heart” Out of People?
Budget Coverage Is Low on Big-Picture Numbers, High on Hyperbole About Government Beneficiaries

February 03
A Faked Hug? U.S. Coerced Iraqi Voters? MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Pushes Crackpot Conspiracies
Liberal Radio Host Mocks Iraqi Voters with Nazi Salute

January 31
Election Triumph Belies Network Naysayers
Strong Turnout by Iraqi Voters and Relative Calm Contradict Many Journalists’ Pessimistic Predictions

January 25
Will They Dismiss a Real Vote, When They Fell for a Fraud?
ABC, CNN, and NBC Touted Saddam 100-Percent “Vote” in 2002

January 11
Morning Shows Give Short Shrift to CBS Hoax
Overnight, CBS’s Dan Rather Fiasco Goes From Big Story to Minimal Story on ABC, NBC, and CNN
S3nd K3ys wrote:
It's common knowledge that the media are much more biased to the liberal side than the conservative side.

You wasted your time, S3nd. If you remember right, the last time we discussed biased media, I did agree with you that most of the media is liberal-biased, and I did agree that it is a sad picture.
Maybe that's why I didn't mind providing a link to that thread and that post, in my previous post.:
And maybe that's why I also happaned to write this:
lib wrote:
PS: Yes, I did agree that there is major bias, perhaps more liberal bias than conservative bias, and that's why I never quoted NY Times in any of my posts, nor any other known-biased sources.

However, read my post again. All I'm saying is that national media is biased, one way or another.
And all I'm saying is that Fox is definitely biased, and you agreed...
S3nd K3ys wrote:
Fox is not nearly as biased as CBS, NBC, BBC, AP, Reuters, ABC, and most of the other big wigs.

Maybe not as biased as, but definitely biased, wouldn't you agree?
PS: BBC Shouldn't be in there. Very Happy, because I've seen may articles in BBC celebrating the "victories" in the Iraq war, like the passing of the charter.
K3ys is correct ... the dictionary defines a lie as:

1.) A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2.) Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

But of course ... dictionaries are also part of the vast right wing conspiracy ... Laughing
Everything on TV is a lie, don't watch it!
You can always trust the internet...
S3nd K3ys
ocalhoun wrote:
Everything on TV is a lie, don't watch it!
You can always trust the internet...

ocalhoun wrote:
Everything on TV is a lie, don't watch it!

No ... you're wrong ... ever hear of "Reality Television"!?!?!? ... duh!!!! Laughing
ocalhoun wrote:
Everything on TV is a lie, don't watch it!
You can always trust the internet...

Actually I would say that internet is a lot less trustworthy than the TV. It's much easier for people to some free space and broadcast their biased views to a lot more people. However, if you're talking about news sites, well, generally news sites also have TV channels, so, they contain pretty much the same side of the stories...
Related topics
Federal response to Katrina was faster than Hugo,
Dems: these are merely the facts
RNC finally grows a pair and fights back
Does anyone believe that the U.S. is a corrupt government?
If you could spam on Frihost to gain points/FRIH$
New gadget repels teenagers
Software piracy
What is Philosophy to you?
Can't Install Windows on New HD
A rant on God, religion and morality
Is Barack Obama "The One"?
Faith Schools
A vision of the ideal economy...
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.