Iraqi insurgents urge Sunnis to vote, warn Zarqawi
|FALLUJA/RAMADI Iraq (Reuters) - Saddam Hussein loyalists who violently opposed January elections have made an about-face as Thursday's polls near, urging fellow Sunni Arabs to vote and warning al Qaeda militants not to attack.
In a move unthinkable in the bloody run-up to the last election, guerrillas in the western insurgent heartland of Anbar province say they are even prepared to protect voting stations from fighters loyal to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of al Qaeda in Iraq.
Graffiti calling for holy war is now hard to find.
So no matter how bad the MSM skews the outcome of this operation, the truth still leaks out from time to time.
Look, sunnis and shias are all Muslims and they form the Muslim force altogether. You cannot say sunnis and shias. Well we know there are huge differences, but our faith and god is same. Its like protestants and catholics.
We donot want to trouble, its the extremists, so why do you trouble us?
Hope this changes your vpoint about Muslims.
Still going on about a Imaginary Liberal MSM that doesn't exist ? Or you deny the facts again ?
|i_am_mine wrote: |
|Still going on about a Imaginary Liberal MSM that doesn't exist ? Or you deny the facts again ? |
LoL. Sure kid. Here you go... here's some FACTS for you to choke on.
| ■ Network coverage has been overwhelmingly pessimistic. More than half of all stories (848, or 61%) focused on negative topics or presented a pessimistic analysis of the situation, four times as many as featured U.S. or Iraqi achievements or offered an optimistic assessment (just 211 stories, or 15%).
■ News about the war has grown increasingly negative. In January and February, about a fifth of all network stories (21%) struck a hopeful note, while just over half presented a negative slant on the situation. By August and September, positive stories had fallen to a measly seven percent and the percentage of bad news stories swelled to 73 percent of all Iraq news, a ten-to-one disparity.
■ Terrorist attacks are the centerpiece of TV’s war news. Two out of every five network evening news stories (564) featured car bombings, assassinations, kidnappings or other attacks launched by the terrorists against the Iraqi people or coalition forces, more than any other topic.
■ Even coverage of the Iraqi political process has been negative. More stories (124) focused on shortcomings in Iraq’s political process — the danger of bloodshed during the January elections, political infighting among politicians, and fears that the new Iraqi constitution might spur more civil strife — than found optimism in the Iraqi people’s historic march to democracy (92 stories). One-third of those optimistic stories (32) appeared on just two nights — January 30 and 31, just after Iraq’s first successful elections.
■ Few stories focused on the heroism or generous actions of American soldiers. Just eight stories were devoted to recounting episodes of heroism or valor by U.S. troops, and another nine stories featured instances when soldiers reached out to help the Iraqi people. In contrast, 79 stories focused on allegations of combat mistakes or outright misconduct on the part of U.S. military personnel.
■ It’s not as if there was no “good news” to report. NBC’s cameras found a bullish stock market and a hiring boom in Baghdad’s business district, ABC showcased the coalition’s successful effort to bring peace to a Baghdad thoroughfare once branded “Death Street,” and CBS documented how the one-time battleground of Sadr City is now quiet and citizens are beginning to benefit from improved public services. Stories describing U.S. and Iraqi achievements provided essential context to the discouraging drumbeat of daily news, but were unfortunately just a small sliver of TV’s Iraq news.
|Because now, thanks to some public-spirited leaker at ABC, we have the full text of an internal memo from its political director, Mark Halperin, to his minions. It's dated Friday, Oct. 8, 2004, and it makes perfectly clear whose side ABC "News" is going to be on in this presidential election:
(ITALICS) It goes without saying that the stakes are getting very high for the country and the campaigns - and our responsibilities become quite grave.
I do not want to set off (an) endless colloquy that none of us have time for today - nor do I want to stifle one. Please respond if you feel you can advance the discussion.
The New York Times (Nagourney/Stevenson) and Howard Fineman on the web both make the same point today: the current Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done.
Kerry distorts, takes out of context, and mistakes all the time, but these are not central to his efforts to win.
We have a responsibility to hold both sides accountable to the public interest, but that doesn't mean we reflexively and artificially hold both sides "equally" accountable when the facts don't warrant that.
I'm sure many of you have this week felt the stepped up Bush efforts to complain about our coverage. This is all part of their efforts to get away with as much as possible with the stepped up, renewed efforts to win the election by destroying Senator Kerry at least partly through distortions.
It's up to Kerry to defend himself, of course. But as one of the few news organizations with the skill and strength to help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying to serve the public interest. Now is the time for all of us to step up and do that right.
To summarize: Yes, our candidate may falsify now and then, but the other guy's falsity is at the center of his campaign. This memo might as well be a declaration of political war on ABC's part. It's what every true believer thinks in the heat of an election season. But it's unusual for a supposed unbiased newsman to think so. Or rather say so. In writing.
Liberal Media Bias isn't just a feeling anymore; it's a documented plan. Case closed. With a full confession.
And if you honestly can't hear the prejudice in ABC's memo, try switching the names of the candidates around and it'll come through loud and clear. Unless, of course, you really do believe one presidential candidate is basically a good guy and the other is evil personified.
|Dan Rather in Crisis
Updated September 29, 2004
On September 8, 2004, Dan Rather cited “exclusive information, including documents” to justify major CBS Evening News and 60 Minutes stories alleging that George W. Bush shirked his duties when he was in the Texas Air National Guard in the 1960s and 1970s. Within a few hours of those documents being posted on CBS News’s Web site, however, typography experts voiced skepticism that the documents had actually originated with their alleged author and Bush’s former commanding officer, the late Lt. Colonel Jerry Killian. As the evidence mounted, Rather stubbornly clung to the idea that his story was bulletproof, and he derided critics as partisans and Internet rumormongers. When he “apologized” on September 20, Rather would not concede that the documents were forgeries, only that he and CBS could “no longer vouch for their authenticity.”
CBS’s Revolving (Democratic) Door:
Josh Howard, the top producer for the Wednesday edition of 60 Minutes — the CBS program that used forged documents to attack George W. Bush’s National Guard service — previously worked for two liberal New York Democrats, then-Congressman Stephen Solarz and now-Senator Charles Schumer back when he was in the New York state assembly. And, after he started working at CBS, Howard made large contributions to the Solarz campaign, Bob Novak revealed in his September 25 column.
(CyberAlert, September 28, 2004)
The Pot Calling the Kettle Black:
Two-and-a-half weeks after running its hit job on Bush using forged documents, CBS News decided that it would be "inappropriate" to air so close to the presidential election a 60 Minutes story about how the Bush administration relied on forged documents to justify the Iraq war, the Associated Press reported September 25. That and viewers would laugh at CBS’s chutzpah.
(CyberAlert, September 27, 2004)
CBS's Dan RatherRather vs. Republican Thornburgh:
On the September 22 CBS Evening News, Dan Rather continued to refuse to describe those memos as forgeries, merely as “documents CBS News has not been able to authenticate,” as if validation might be just around the corner. The New York Times revealed Rather was angry that a Republican, former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, was one of the men appointed to independently investigate the forged memo scandal: “Mr. Rather considers Mr. Thornburgh a confounding choice in part because he served two Republican Presidents, Mr. Bush’s father and Richard M. Nixon, with whom Mr. Rather publicly clashed.”
(CyberAlert, September 23, 2004)
CBS Producer Mary MapesMary Mapes, Liberal Matchmaker:
On the September 21 CBS Evening News, Dan Rather again failed to apologize to President Bush for his bogus 60 Minutes story based on forged documents, but the Evening News did acknowledge that Rather’s producer, Mary Mapes, put the Kerry campaign in touch with CBS’s untrustworthy source, Bill Burkett. Reporter Bill Plante read from CBS’s official statement forbidding bias: “It is obviously against CBS News standards to be associated with any political agenda.” Meanwhile, Rather told the Chicago Tribune that he still thinks the memos are real: “Do I think they’re forged? No.”
(CyberAlert, September 22, 2004)
The Slime Before the “Apology”:
Before Dan Rather admitted his own errors in pushing a fraudulent anti-Bush story based on partisan sources and forged documents, he and his network chose to point fingers at others, falsely suggesting that CBS was promoting “truth” in the face of “partisan political ideological forces.” Of course, the “ideological forces” condemning CBS’s sloppy journalism were correct.
(Worst Of The Week, September 21, 2004)
Dan Rather’s Sorry Apology:
While he did acknowledge it was “a mistake” to have used forged memos in his attack on George W. Bush, Rather on the September 20 Evening News refused to describe the memos as forgeries, offered no apology for impugning critics — who turned out to be accurate — as “partisan political operatives” and “partisan political ideological forces,” and he conceded CBS approached Bill Burkett despite Burkett’s well-known Bush-hating animosity. And the father of CBS producer Mary Mapes, who engineered the flawed 60 Minutes hit piece, told a Seattle radio station: “I’m really ashamed what my daughter has become. She’s a typical liberal.”
(CyberAlert, September 21, 2004)
So Much for Dan’s Thrust:
Dan Rather’s notion that “the thrust” of his report was unchallenged was destroyed September 17 when ABC News interviewed retired Brigadier General Walter Staudt, the man whom the memos claimed was “pushing to sugar coat” George W. Bush’s National Guard performance record. Staudt told ABC he did not give Bush any favored treatment. But in the next morning’s Los Angeles Times, 60 Minutes executive producer Josh Howard tried to blame the White House for CBS’s sloppy reporting, and the September 19 Washington Post exposed the new “experts” CBS touted as bolstering their case. “I’m not an expert and I don’t pretend to be,” former typewriter repairman Bill Glennon confessed.
(CyberAlert, September 20, 2004)
Dan Rather did not talk about the forged memo scandal on the September 16 CBS Evening News, but his case looked ever weaker. FNC’s Jim Angle interviewed Texas Air National Guard veterans who contradicted claims made by Rather and ex-secretary Marian Carr Knox on 60 Minutes the night before, and “none of the experts used by CBS are accredited by the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners,” CNN’s Jeanne Meserve reported on NewsNight. Meanwhile, CBS News veteran Andy Rooney told the New York Daily News he thinks the memos are fakes, adding: “I’m surprised at their reluctance to concede they’re wrong.”
(CyberAlert, September 17, 2004)
CBS's Dan RatherFake but Accurate:
On the September 15 60 Minutes, Dan Rather offered a sleazy new standard for journalists: Using phoney evidence is okay if “the major thrust” of the story might be true. Rather trumpeted how while the 86-year-old ex-secretary of Lt. Colonel Jerry Killian said CBS’s memos were not authentic, “she told us she believes what the documents actually say is exactly as we reported.” Later that night, Rather ludicrously boasted to the Washington Post’s Howard Kurtz: “If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I’d like to break that story.”
(CyberAlert, September 16, 2004)
CBS Disregarded Experts, Challenged Laura Bush:
ABC’s Brian Ross reported on the September 14 World News Tonight that “two experts hired by CBS News say the network ignored concerns they raised prior to the broadcast about the disputed National Guard records.” But over on CBS, reporter John Roberts wondered why President Bush wasn’t taking those memos seriously: “The President has yet to weigh in on new documents about his National Guard record made public last week by 60 Minutes.” Roberts also chastised First Lady Laura Bush for doubting CBS’s memos were authentic: “Laura Bush offered no evidence to back up her claim, and CBS News continues to stand by its reporting.”
(CyberAlert, September 15, 2004)
CBS Evening NewsEven CBS’s Expert Jumps Ship:
Just days after Dan Rather cited handwriting expert Marcel Matley as confirming the authenticity of those memos, Matley told the Washington Post that he could not vouch for CBS’s memos. A September 14 article by Michael Dobbs and Howard Kurtz quoted Matley undermining Rather: “There’s no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them.” On the September 13 Evening News, however, Rather highlighted a typewriter repairman as evidence “that the documents could have been created in the ‘70s,” although he did not establish whether the Texas Air National Guard possessed the expensive equipment required to do so.
(CyberAlert, September 14, 2004)
More Evidence Contradicts CBS:
On the September 11 Good Morning America, ABC’s George Stephanopoulos relayed that retired Major General Bobby Hodges, “who CBS described as their ‘trump card,’ now says that he thinks the documents are not authentic and he does not believe the CBS story is true.” The Dallas Morning News reported that retired General Walter Staudt, “the man named in a disputed memo as exerting pressure to ‘sugar coat’ President Bush’s military record, left the Texas Air National Guard a year and a half before the memo was supposedly written, his own service record shows.” And the Washington Times on September 12 quoted the reaction of Earl Lively, the director of Texas Air National Guard operations during Bush’s years of service: “They’re forged as hell.”
(CyberAlert, September 13, 2004)
CBS Evening NewsSticking By His Smear:
On September 10, Dan Rather responded to charges the memos he cited as proving Bush’s dereliction were forged, telling his CBS Evening News audience that the memos were genuine and attacking any doubters as partisan rumor-mongers. “Today, on the Internet and elsewhere, some people, including many who are partisan political operatives, concentrated not on the key questions of the overall story, but on the documents that were part of the support of the story,” Rather castigated. But his lame defense ignored key challenges to the documents’ typography and content, and the doubts voiced by the widow and son of the supposed author, the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. Instead, Rather chose to repeat his indictment of President Bush’s National Guard service. Rather arrogantly concluded: “If any definitive evidence to the contrary of our story is found, we will report it. So far there is none.”
(CyberAlert, September 11, 2004)
After weeks of ignoring or denigrating anti-Kerry charges voiced by fellow Vietnam veterans, CBS’s Dan Rather led the September 8 Evening News with supposed new proof that George W. Bush had shirked his duties as a Texas Air National Guardsman 30 years earlier: “There are new questions tonight about President Bush’s service in the Texas Air National Guard in the late 1960s and early ’70s and about his insistence that he met his military service obligations. CBS News has exclusive information, including documents, that now sheds new light on the President’s service record. 60 Minutes has obtained government documents that indicate Mr. Bush may have received preferential treatment in the Guard after not fulfilling his commitments.”
(CyberAlert, September 9, 2004)
A Question or a Threat?
During an interview with First Lady Laura Bush on the September 2 CBS Evening News (the last day of the Republican convention), Rather seemed to couch a threat in the form of a question: “Now that friends and supporters of the President have raised the issue of John Kerry’s combat record in Vietnam, do you or do you not think it’s fair now for the Kerry people to come back and dig anew into your husband’s military service record?” That was less than a week before Rather used forged memos as evidence in stories attacking Bush’s National Guard Service.
(CyberAlert, September 3, 2004)
20 Years On the CBS Evening News:
Dan Rather's Outrageous Liberal Bias
Dan Rather replaced Walter Cronkite as anchor of the then-top rated CBS Evening News on March 9, 1981. Since then, his on-air liberal bias has become the stuff of legend. For Rather’s 20th anniversary in 2001, the MRC compiled some of Rather’s most quotable bias, along with illustrations of his nearly-nonsensical “Ratherisms” and his equally-comical denials of liberal bias. As ABC’s Peter Jennings and NBC’s Tom Brokaw reached their 20th anniversaries in 2003, Rather was still on CBS each night, a longtime liberal advocate masquerading as a journalist.
March 2005: After the embarrassing scandal involving Dan Rather’s use of forged documents in a one-sided 60 Minutes hit piece aimed at President Bush just before the 2004 presidential election, CBS announced Rather would leave the CBS Evening News on March 9, 2005, a year earlier than planned. To mark the end of Rather’s liberal reign, the Media Research Center compiled The Dan Rather Files, an exhaustive text and video library.
30 Straight Years of NASA Cuts: “There’s certainly been talk that in recent years that Congress’s attitude and, for that matter, the attitude of a succession of Presidents beginning with President Nixon, running through Carter, Reagan, Bush first and President Clinton and now President George W. Bush, there’s been more cost cutting that has resulted in safety cutting.”
— CBS’s live coverage on February 4, 2003 of a memorial for Columbia’s crew. Moments later, CBS space expert Bill Harwood corrected Rather, pointing out that “after Challenger, the budgets really ramped up.”
Dan’s Distorted Poll Reporting: “The President calls the tax cut necessary. Democrats call it a campaign for the wealthy. So far, it’s a problematic sell for the President. In a CBS News/New York Times poll out tonight, less than half the respondents thought the Bush tax cut would actually help the economy.”
— May 13, 2003 CBS Evening News. Rather failed to report that the poll he cited showed twice as many said tax cuts would help the economy (41 percent) than said new tax cuts would hurt (19 percent).
Bush’s Partisan Stance on Global Warming: “President Bush has been criticized at home and abroad for pulling out of the international treaty to curb global warming, the Kyoto Treaty. Now, CBS’s John Roberts reports, conservationists, environmentalists and some others are taking the President to task for what they say was the cynical changing of a major report on global warming. They say it was altered to put hardball partisan politics over hard independent science.”
— CBS Evening News, June 19, 2003.
Back to the Top
And there's more if you'd care to see for yourself...
No End to Media’s Defeatism on Iraq War
MRC Study: Amid Iraq Progress, Networks Continue to Emphasize Violence and Calls for Withdrawal
New Anchor’s Record of Liberal Advocacy
As ABC’s White House Correspondent, New Nightline Anchor Terry Moran Pushed a Liberal Agenda
Media’s Post-Election Spin Favors Democrats
In 1997, GOP Wins Spun as Happiness with Clinton’s Status Quo; Now Reporters See Anti-Bush Anger
Alito the Extremist, Ginsburg the Moderate?
In 1993, Networks Touted Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a “Moderate” and Omitted Her Conservative Critics
Morbid Networks Tout Iraq War’s “Milestone”
ABC, CBS and NBC Skip Army Soldier’s Heroics; ABC and CBS Downplay Democratic Constitution
TV’s Depressing, Defeatist Coverage of Iraq War
MRC Study: Networks Paint Dark Picture of War Effort, Emphasizing Terrorist Attacks and U.S. Deaths
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
Preparing the Battlefield for a Roberts Ambush?
“Very Conservative” Supreme Court Pick Portrayed as a Confederate, Racist and Male Chauvinist Pig
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
Interested in Connected Dots or Blaming Bush?
In 2002, Network News Breathlessly Touted Charge That “Bush Knew” In Advance of 9/11 Plot
Announcing Another Way to Fight Liberal Bias
MRC Launches NewsBusters.org, an Interactive Web Log Dedicated to Exposing the Media’s Tilt
"Defiant" Bush Sends "Damaged Goods" to UN
Networks React with Indignation to Bush’s Recess Appointment, But Praised Clinton’s ‘97 “Solution”
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
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
Going Over Easy for Democrats in the Morning
Network Anchors Tenderly Offer Senators Chance to Rebut and Criticize President’s Fort Bragg Speech
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?
PBS on Tom DeLay: Favors “Virtual Slavery”?
Replacement for Bill Moyers Is Becoming the New Poster Boy for Blatant Liberal Bias on Public TV
Anchors Gush Over Heroism of "Deep Throat"
Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, and Aaron Brown Offer the Passionate Liberal Rebuttal to Mark Felt’s Critics
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
MRC Study: Six Times More “Conservative” than “Liberal” Labels on Network News Since Election Day
Extreme Conservatives vs. Unlabeled Liberals
Ignoring the Pro-Pope Polls of Catholics
Networks Claimed "Many Catholics" Opposed "Ultraconservative" Ratzinger, "God’s Rottweiler"
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”
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
Slanting the News Against Terri Schiavo
ABC, CBS and NBC Evening News Coverage Favors Those Who Would Stop Feeding Disabled Woman
Good Riddance to Dan Rather’s Rotten Bias
For Decades, the Liberal CBS Anchorman Twisted the News to Help Liberals and Hurt Conservatives
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.”
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
Is Bush “Ripping the Heart” Out of People?
Budget Coverage Is Low on Big-Picture Numbers, High on Hyperbole About Government Beneficiaries
A Faked Hug? U.S. Coerced Iraqi Voters? MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Pushes Crackpot Conspiracies
Liberal Radio Host Mocks Iraqi Voters with Nazi Salute
Election Triumph Belies Network Naysayers
Strong Turnout by Iraqi Voters and Relative Calm Contradict Many Journalists’ Pessimistic Predictions
Will They Dismiss a Real Vote, When They Fell for a Fraud?
ABC, CNN, and NBC Touted Saddam 100-Percent “Vote” in 2002
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
Ok, fine. Here's scientific proof of liberal media bias...
|While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left.
These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.
"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are."
"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.
The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December.
Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and "0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low‑population states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the political position of the average U.S. voter.
Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants — most of them college students — to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years. They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the right-leaning Heritage Foundation.
Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker, then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.
"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."
Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal.
Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.
The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer." CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were a close second and third.
"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004 presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news outlets — Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said. "If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."
The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center, the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from the center, the report found.
"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of Missouri at Columbia.
Five news outlets — "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report — were in a statistical dead heat in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA Today was the most centrist.
An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News" and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., who has an ADA score of 74.
Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report, Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington Post.
Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political position, they omitted editorials and Op‑Eds from their tallies. This is one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than conventional wisdom asserts.
Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the Drudge Report was slightly left of center.
"One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose. "Very little was based on the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias of the media."
Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious example of a liberal news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University of Missouri study, it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the study examined.
"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything, government‑funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.."
The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias — or the appearance of same — in the work, which took close to three years to complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding, a rarity in scholarly research.
"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right- or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities provided," Groseclose said.
The results break new ground.
"Past researchers have been able to say whether an outlet is conservative or liberal, but no one has ever compared media outlets to lawmakers," Groseclose said. "Our work gives a precise characterization of the bias and relates it to known commodity — politicians."
Now, this study has pointed out bias on both sides, but it is flawed for a number of reasons.
1. Their methodology simply isn't sound. They're quantifying a political quality. Furthermore, the ADA score itself isn't considered credible, but mere novelty. So, any calculations further based upon the same methodology is pure pseudoscience.
2. The top two authors have asserted preconceived notions of Liberal bias, so whether half of their underlings were Liberal or not is irrelevant.
3. It hasn't been peer-reviewed yet and when and if it is, it will be torn to shreds.
4. The number of medias it checked was small, and they weren't necessarily random.
5. Its credibility is further undermined because it's a Political Science study that is quite bizarrely being published in an Economics journal. It's well-established that Economics is a field dominated by Conservatives.
But if that isn't evidence enough, the study claims, "Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman."
Let's take a look at Lieberman, shall we?
- Pro-censorship (for religious reasons).
- Pro-Iraq war.
- Against Bill Clinton.
- Critical of Al Gore.
- Supported by the National Review.
- Neoconservative on National Security and Foreign Policy.
- A member of the "Gang of 14."
In fact, his only really Liberal policies are gun control, abortion, and the environment.
Take a look at John Breaux's voting record:
Then take a look at Joseph Lieberman's record:
The only thing "less Liberal," than Lieberman is a Republican.
Wow. That's some Liberal media. Even biased researchers can't even fake decent research! All they can come up with is that the media is a millimeter left of the center!
that truth thing is pesky, isn't it?