Stating the Obvious Story of the Day

[MadsenOMC]

Unfair and unbalanced: Fox News’ coverage of Obama tops the bias scale
by Isaac Peterson, III
Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder
Originally posted 7/2/2008

As everyone knows by now, U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) recently made history by becoming the first Black presidential nominee of a major political party.

Obama’s primary race victory was due to an unusual confluence of support that cut across lines of race, class and gender. The turnout for primary election voting was surprisingly high, and Obama continues to attract major rock-star numbers of supporters wherever he appears while campaigning.

However, not everyone is thrilled with Obama’s success.

On June 22, the Washington Post featured an article titled “3 in 10 Americans Admit to Race Bias.” The article, based on a Washington Post-ABC News poll, stated that “...nearly half of all Americans say race relations in the country are in bad shape and three in 10 acknowledge feelings of racial prejudice...”

The Post article also noted that “...nearly nine in 10 whites said they would be comfortable with a black president. While fewer whites, about two-thirds, said they would be “entirely comfortable” with it, that was more than double the percentage of all adults who said they would be so at ease with someone entering office for the first time at age 72, which McCain (R-Ariz.) would do should he prevail in November.”

Though those Whites not “entirely comfortable” with the idea of a Black president are a minority, they seem to have a major media outlet that shares that discomfort: the Fox News Network.

First, it must be stressed that bias against Obama exists across the mainstream media spectrum in varying degrees. However, Fox News, whose slogan is “Fair and Balanced,” seems to have gone above and beyond in its anti-Obama rhetoric, which also includes smears and misinformation about Obama’s outspoken wife, Michelle.
Some examples:

• A June 11 Fox News broadcast graphic identified Michelle Obama as “Obama’s baby mama” rather than as Obama’s wife.

• On the night that Obama secured the Democratic Party nomination, he and Michelle bumped knuckles, a gesture that the Fox News anchor referred to as a “terrorist jab.” To his credit, the anchor has since apologized for the remark.

• On a Fox News broadcast during the Puerto Rico primary campaign, Republican strategist Roger Stone alleged that Michelle Obama had publicly referred to Whites as “whitey” and that a tape existed that would back up the charge of her alleged racism. The smear that Stone passed along originated with right-wing blogger Larry Johnson and made the rounds of right-wing blogs, repeated by talk radio host Rush Limbaugh.

Stone was soon forced to admit that he had not talked to anyone that had viewed the tape. Indeed, no such tape appears to exist.

• While Obama’s father may be Muslim, the repeated veiled references on Fox News to Obama himself being an unpatriotic Muslim who refuses to say the pledge of allegiance or wear an American flag lapel pin while intending to destroy the United States are too numerous to mention in this space.

• The breathless non-stop “coverage” of the “controversy” surrounding remarks by Obama’s pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, has been covered extensively elsewhere and is also too voluminous to chronicle in this space. This occurred simultaneously with Fox News’ failure to cover outrageous comments made by McCain supporters John Hagee and Rod Parsley.

• Several Fox News personnel have been only too happy to smear Obama by assertion, using such tactics as equating Obama’s first name with Osama bin Laden’s name and Obama’s middle name (Hussein) with Saddam.

One notable example was a joke made by Fox News Chairman and CEO Roger Ailes, who reportedly said in a speech, “It’s true that Barack Obama is on the move. I don’t know if it’s true President Bush called [Pakistan President Pervez] Musharraf and said, ‘Why can’t we catch this guy?’”

• Last year, the Fox News program Fox and Friends aired a report that Obama had attended a radical Islamic school in Indonesia when he was a child. When the allegation was shown to be false, Fox and Friends’ co-hosts distanced themselves from the story, which had begun as an unsubstantiated story in Insight Magazine, a publication by the right-wing Washington Times newspaper.

• On June 6, Fox News anchor Brit Hume said about Obama: “His campaign has emphasized his faith in part to dispel what the campaign calls an online smear campaign which contends among other things that Obama was raised a Muslim. There is even a statement on his official campaign website reading, quote, ‘Obama has never been a Muslim, and is a committed Christian.’ But Obama’s half brother is not so sure. Malik Obama tells The Jerusalem Post that, ‘if elected his brother will be a good president for the Jewish people, despite his Muslim background.’”

The quote from Obama’s brother was dutifully repeated on fan sites for Fox News’ Sean Hannity as well as by conservative bloggers. ABC News obtained a tape of the interview in question, and although the questions aren’t clearly heard, what Obama’s brother said was perfectly audible.

What Malik Obama apparently did say, in part, was: “...I can’t go in terms of Israel and Kenya and America, and so forth, you know, but based on what else I’ve heard him say and what I know of him as an individual, I don’t think Israel should worry too much, you know, about the connection. Because, I am a Muslim myself, and I don’t think that my being a Muslim has got anything to do with my brother being the President of the United States.”

Brit Hume has, as far as we can determine, yet to issue a correction or retraction.

• Obama’s recent announcement that he would forego public financing for the general election was portrayed, through selective editing of what Obama actually said, as a hypocritical flip-flop from his earlier statements. The distortion occurred on Fox News’ June 19 Special Report broadcast, which also omitted the context in which Obama had said, “If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

In addition, across the board, Fox News personalities have uniformly declined to inform viewers of Republican challenger John McCain’s problems with the public financing system, which was intended to reduce the role of special interests and the wealthy on campaigns.

When McCain’s campaign was floundering in the primary election season, the Republican candidate is accused of having secured public taxpayer funds to keep the campaign on life support. To secure the public funding, McCain had allegedly signed a binding agreement with the Federal Elections Commission that obligated him to accept spending limits and agree to other conditions for accepting the funds.

McCain has since withdrawn from the public finance system, a move that apparently has legal repercussions. There are other allegations of improprieties on McCain’s part that, if demonstrated to be true, would leave his campaign in legal trouble. None of this gets reported on Fox News, however.

Again, Fox News is not the only media outlet guilty of distortions and smears against the Obamas. They do seem, however, to be the willing source of many of the smears and have displayed an unhealthy willingness to pass on as fact any unsourced or unfounded allegation that will put the Obamas in the worst light possible.

Fox News has been shown — despite its claims to “fairness” and “balance” — to be one of the last places those two journalistic values can be found. Again, we stress that media bias is pervasive; Fox News just appears to be the worst purveyor. In fact, some media figures have been accused of being too blatantly pro-Obama, perhaps most notably MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann.

We had hoped to include academic analysis on the local media situation, but were unable to secure such input by our print deadline.

[Homyrrh]

In keeping score:

McCain
FOX
NY Post
Talk Radio

Obama
CNN
MSNBC
NY Times

Gotta admit, I can't get enough of watching FOX. That Silly Billy O'Reilly!

[Homyrrh]

I should add that liberal bias is more widespread, but it's just concentrated enough at FOX to equalize.

Regulators, mount up...

[MadsenOMC]

I should add that liberal bias is more widespread, but it's just concentrated enough at FOX to equalize.

How do you figure that? I think many people believe anything to the left of right constitutes liberal bias, which is not the case.

[MadsenOMC]

Strange story here:

Fox News airs altered photos of NY Times reporters

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807020002

[Homyrrh]

How do you figure that? I think many people believe anything to the left of right constitutes liberal bias, which is not the case.
I think this debate's been exhausted numerous times, but this is my recent news-watching experience in a nutshell:

*Turns on FOX*
"And we're back with more on reports that Senator Obama has fostered a Muslim lovechild..."
What? *Turns to CNN*
"...alright then, how can you even attempt to prove McCain actually served in the Navy..."
Probably finished on FOX...*turns to FOX*...
"...General Clark today furthered his comments, glorifying Obama's military record..."
"...Stephen Wright deserves to..."
"...why shouldn't we lynch Barack..."
"...be canonized..."
"...but there's proof out there that Cheney is a cannibal..."
"...but there's proof out there that Pelosi is a cannibal..."

...

[Homyrrh]

Strange story here:

Fox News airs altered photos of NY Times reporters

http://mediamatters.org/items/200807020002
Like I said...

[MadsenOMC]

I think this debate's been exhausted numerous times, but this is my recent news-watching experience in a nutshell:

Maybe it has been debated numerous times, but I have yet to see solid evidence of a liberal bias on MSNBC or CNN, and I watch them both daily. I have yet to see one of either channel's news anchors question McCain's Navy service, for example. Maybe Keith Olbermann did, but he represents the entire network no more than the conservative Joe Scarborough does.

[Cop No. 633]

Further proof that Faux News Channel should be banned from ever "reporting" the news. The saddest part is that people actually watch it to get news and not because they know it's a shitty source of news and apt as a study to see how the corporate right wing in this country brainwash citizens and damage the credibility of journalism.

Rupert Murdoch knows what he's doing. He's an intelligent man but is a whore for the corporate government that we have now.

[Homyrrh]

Further proof that Faux News Channel should be banned from ever "reporting" the news. The saddest part is that people actually watch it to get news and not because they know it's a shitty source of news and apt as a study to see how the corporate right wing in this country brainwash citizens and damage the credibility of journalism.

Rupert Murdoch knows what he's doing. He's an intelligent man but is a whore for the corporate government that we have now.
Murdoch's a demigod...

[Cop No. 633]

More like a general demon of the 33 legions of Hell.

[Homyrrh]

More like a general demon of the 33 legions of Hell.
No, you can't prove more than twelve and you know that.

[Badbird]

There is no liberal bias.

If so, how the hell did Bush every get elected? Why hasn't McCain been torn to shreds? Because there is no liberal bias.

Hell, most stories I see anymore are about gas prices anyway.

But Fox is pure fantasy land, and run like every hour is amature hour. The sheer number of simple goofs and facepalming-stupid graphics they put up is staggering.

Seriously. Baby Mama?

[Cop No. 633]

There is no liberal bias.

If so, how the hell did Bush every get elected? Why hasn't McCain been torn to shreds? Because there is no liberal bias.

Hell, most stories I see anymore are about gas prices anyway.

But Fox is pure fantasy land, and run like every hour is amature hour. The sheer number of simple goofs and facepalming-stupid graphics they put up is staggering.

Seriously. Baby Mama?

Using facts and starting the obvious is what corporate Republicans deem as "liberal bias."

Being righteous under God's will also means hitting on male interns and looking for some sweaty action in restrooms. Go figure.

[Homyrrh]

Using facts and starting the obvious is what corporate Republicans deem as "liberal bias."

Being righteous under God's will also means hitting on male interns and looking for some sweaty action in restrooms. Go figure.
Then piping said "interns" in the governor's mansion with wife and/or hiring a $5000/night hooker...heh.

[QUENTIN]

In keeping score:

McCain
FOX
NY Post
Talk Radio

Obama
CNN
MSNBC
NY Times

Gotta admit, I can't get enough of watching FOX. That Silly Billy O'Reilly!

Do you really feel that way? Most wide-ranging studies on media bias I've seen reveal little to no liberal bias in the reporting of stories in what the right considers the liberal outlets, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, etc. What they find is that the reporters themselves tend to be liberals, but the station chiefs, managers, and corporate brass tend to be conservative, and all parties at least attempt objective journalism. Of course the editorials of the New York Times for instance lean left, but I separate that from the reporting which I find to be accurate and following the norms of journalistic integrity. That's perhaps the biggest problem with Fox I think and why it's so off-balance and out-there, they don't separate the journalism from the editorializing. They don't even try to. They have openly conservative pundits with talk shows also hosting their supposedly unbiased news shows and providing a running commentary. It's the equivalent of if Air America pretended to be anything blatantly pushing a liberal agenda. I really don't think there is a major, mainstream Fox News counterpart on the left and don't think the level of bias found there is even remotely comparable to the other 24-hour news stations but I'm curious to hear your thoughts on it.

My biggest problem in general with any of the stations is how lazy they've gotten. We can decry infotainment for the hundred thousandth time, but their most egregious offense in my eyes is fundamentally not understanding what "objective" means. Televisions news has almost uniformly adopted the practice of simply presenting two opposing viewpoints, having two guests bicker, or saying "This Senator alleges...while the Department announced that those claims are baseless." and mistaking that for fair, objective journalism. But that isn't journalism at all, there is a responsibility of the media to know, research, and analyze what the two sides are saying and if one side is simply outright lying, if the statistics they're using are 40 years old, or if someone is pretending to be just a scientist or military expert but is on a party payroll, the station has a responsibility to say so. That would show no bias, it would simply report the facts of the case which is what the media is there for, because we can't afford individually to hire crack research teams. Reducing every issue to providing a platform for two opposing viewpoints just isn't reporting the news.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

I'm not going to argue that major news stations typically have more liberals working for them than conservatives. The numbers I've read seem to indicate this, anyway. Then again, I suppose I won't argue that if conservatives have such a goddamn problem with this, then they should get off their asses and get a degree in journalism so they can infiltrate the media they hate so much.

The "liberal media" argument is one of the least intelligent arguments ever devised because it was designed for the purpose of avoiding debate. The economy is on the verge of recession? That's just the LIBERAL MEDIA. Prisoners are being tortured in medieval ways in Abu Ghraib? LIBERAL MEDIA. Sadaam had nothing to do with 9/11? You get the idea. This is what they're really saying:

"I have no argument to disprove what you've said, but since I do not trust your sources, I win this round."

[MadsenOMC]

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/16081.html

And in a related story, Rupert Murdoch and Sam Zell recently joined the AP Board. Coincidence?

[Homyrrh]

Do you really feel that way? Most wide-ranging studies on media bias I've seen reveal little to no liberal bias in the reporting of stories in what the right considers the liberal outlets, CNN, MSNBC, NY Times, etc. What they find is that the reporters themselves tend to be liberals, but the station chiefs, managers, and corporate brass tend to be conservative, and all parties at least attempt objective journalism. Of course the editorials of the New York Times for instance lean left, but I separate that from the reporting which I find to be accurate and following the norms of journalistic integrity. That's perhaps the biggest problem with Fox I think and why it's so off-balance and out-there, they don't separate the journalism from the editorializing. They don't even try to. They have openly conservative pundits with talk shows also hosting their supposedly unbiased news shows and providing a running commentary. It's the equivalent of if Air America pretended to be anything blatantly pushing a liberal agenda. I really don't think there is a major, mainstream Fox News counterpart on the left and don't think the level of bias found there is even remotely comparable to the other 24-hour news stations but I'm curious to hear your thoughts on it.

My biggest problem in general with any of the stations is how lazy they've gotten. We can decry infotainment for the hundred thousandth time, but their most egregious offense in my eyes is fundamentally not understanding what "objective" means. Televisions news has almost uniformly adopted the practice of simply presenting two opposing viewpoints, having two guests bicker, or saying "This Senator alleges...while the Department announced that those claims are baseless." and mistaking that for fair, objective journalism. But that isn't journalism at all, there is a responsibility of the media to know, research, and analyze what the two sides are saying and if one side is simply outright lying, if the statistics they're using are 40 years old, or if someone is pretending to be just a scientist or military expert but is on a party payroll, the station has a responsibility to say so. That would show no bias, it would simply report the facts of the case which is what the media is there for, because we can't afford individually to hire crack research teams. Reducing every issue to providing a platform for two opposing viewpoints just isn't reporting the news.

Solid post.

To briefly elaborate on my sentiment, I feel the "media" doesn't necessarily swing one way or the other. However, there are a lot of major news outlets with a lot of left-leaning pundits. I lsited some, like the Times, but most major newspapers (outside of the Post at least) are liberal papers-- the Tribune, the Globe, etc. Then again, the influence that liberalism has over talk radio is a joke. Nothing.

Blanketing the entire media with one term or the other is subjective, and, as noted before, often a safety plea to elude argument. Of course, Quentin, like you said, crying foul about biased op-ed is elementarily paradoxical; it's the point of the editorial.

I should add that I do read the NY Times daily and watch CNN as much as I do FOX. Why? As a writer and prolific reader, the Times is unsurpassed in it's textual quality and, if ever I do feel there's any bias in what should be objective reporting, I feel I am perpetually wary enough to recognize this and reference further sources. Likewise, I prefer my news from CNN as I trust its objectiveness in this area slightly more than FOX; furthermore, FOX offers pundit programming that has yet to be rivaled by their liberal counterparts. Love him or hate him, O'Reilly's an entertaining guy (and not the square that's been guest-hosting this week).

To conclude, take a look at this recent interview (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/business/media/23askthetimes.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin) with the NY Times political editor, Richard Stevenson. Take a look at this excerpt where he answers two questions from readers about th Times' bias:

Choose Your Bias

Q. It’s clear to anyone who watched the news coverage of the primary that the media was incredibly biased in favor of Senator Barack Obama, and simultaneously incredibly negative toward Senator Hillary Clinton (and her husband). Some of this was clearly due to sexism. But there seemed to be other biases at work. What do you believe was at the root of this drastic difference in coverage? And what is the media going to do to ensure that in the future the press refrains from pushing candidates and confines itself to simply reporting the news?

— Steve Pesce, California

Q. Your bias in the primaries was definitely toward Hillary Clinton and it was disgusting. The constant sensationalist coverage of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was downright shameful and reminiscent of tabloid journalism. The Times overlooked vetting the Clinton Foundation Library donors, Bill Clinton’s ties to Colombia and China (income reported on joint tax statements) or pressing Clinton on why she voted for the war and was silent during Bush’s catastrophic tax cuts for the wealthy. The primary coverage for The New York Times was All Clinton, All of the Time. Stories related to Mr. Obama were devoted to bowling, bitter comment, Rev. Wright, elitism, arugula, and claims of him being effete.

So my question is, when will The New York Times start vetting John McCain instead of defending him? Why not highlight his policy flip-flops, all the times he confused Sunni with Shiite, and the lobbyist corruption in his campaign?

— S.T. Corrao

A. So let’s start with the mother of all criticisms when it comes to The Times and its coverage of politics: that we have deeply embedded biases that color our news judgments and undermine our credibility.

As these two questions illustrate, we get it from all sides. It’s interesting this year that the bulk of the criticism so far has been about how much we love or hate Senator Barack Obama relative to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. That’s no doubt in part a function of the intensity and length of the Democratic primary campaign and the passions of their supporters. It will no doubt give way soon enough to Democrat v. Republican (or liberal v. conservative).

It’s easy to make an argument that when you are hearing more or less equivalent criticism from two opposing sides that you must be getting it right, to be driving the coverage right down the middle of the road. To a large degree, I believe that argument, and have a hard time identifying any patterns of favoritism or unjustifiably tough coverage.

Of course I would say that. If it’s any more convincing to you, our very independent-minded public editor, Clark Hoyt, took a look at the question of biased political coverage a few months ago and concluded “that The Times has not been systematically biased in its news coverage, even if it has occasionally given ammunition to those who claim otherwise.”

By the way, I don’t dispute that last clause of his conclusion, and I’m not one of those journalists who dismiss concerns about bias out of hand.

In my view, all journalists bring their own subjective views and individual experiences along with them whenever they tackle a story. Sometimes that means ideological assumptions or political preferences. Sometimes it means personal judgments about a public figure, based on something as big as a politician’s accomplishments or as small as whether he or she returns a reporter’s phone calls.

Certainly in this election cycle we’ve had to be on high alert: that Senator John McCain’s willingness to chat up the press, for example, did not lead anyone to fall into the tank for him; that the sheer excitement and energy surrounding Mr. Obama did not become seductive; and that our editorial page’s decision to endorse Mrs. Clinton in the Democratic primary did not lead to a perception that the news pages were following suit. The addition of race and gender to the political equation in a big way forced us to be that much more sensitive to real or perceived biases.

There are all kinds of internal and external checks on bias and personal preference. Editors like me have the primary responsibility to identify bias, and we take that job seriously. And while I would not dispute the longstanding assertions that there are more political liberals in newsrooms than conservatives, our political staff, as best I can tell, represents all kinds of backgrounds and beliefs, and because we all work so closely and in such a fishbowl, we all tend to keep one another on the straight and narrow.

Of course, you can take even fairness too far. We’re not interested in balancing our coverage by putting our fingers on the scale, so that we artificially maintain an equivalent number of, say, positive Obama and Clinton stories. And we don’t want to judge every political pronouncement or policy proposal equally worthy — sometimes they demonstrably are not and should be called out for what they are.

We don’t keep figures on positive and negative coverage, though others, like the Project for Excellence in Journalism, have taken a crack at it. In any case, the tone of news coverage is mostly set by the news. On a qualitative level, I’d argue that the toughness of The Times’s coverage of Senators Clinton and Obama, to use the example we started with, was more or less equivalent.

My favorite day on that score came in late December, a few weeks before the Iowa caucuses. We had two stories that came together in final form at the same time, one by Don Van Natta Jr., Jo Becker and Mike McIntire about the donors to former President Bill Clinton’s foundation (note to S.T. Corrao: We didn’t overlook that topic) and another, by Christopher Drew and Raymond Hernandez, on Senator Obama’s record of voting present in the Illinois Legislature.

Both pieces appeared on the front page of the print newspaper, and brought to light significant new information about the candidates. And that, at the end of the day, is what we try to do here.

I could go on, but this topic will no doubt come up again during the week, and I look forward to the discussion.




I laughed at his bio: on-pace to be official record-holder for most Delta shuttles between NYC and DC.

[MadsenOMC]

If by Tribune you mean Chicago Tribune you are mistaken. I am a subscriber and it is most definitely not a liberal paper. Not even close. If it leans either way it leans right.

I do not find Bill O'Reilly remotely entertaining. Watching him foam at the mouth and yell at guests and rant is not my idea of fun.

[The Postmaster General]

Stating the obvious maybe, but probably the only bias we should be concerned with is that which leans toward getting ratings. Probably the most dishonest and bloated reports derive from this, regardless of political leanings.

[MadsenOMC]

Stating the obvious maybe, but probably the only bias we should be concerned with is that which leans toward getting ratings. Probably the most dishonest and bloated reports derive from this.

And I feel this is much, much more prevalent and real than any liberal media bias. All the news networks care about ratings more than anything else.

[Homyrrh]

And I feel this is much, much more prevalent and real than any liberal media bias. All the news networks care about ratings more than anything else.
Wait until it's revealed that news programming is covertly regional...

[Badbird]

And I feel this is much, much more prevalent and real than any liberal media bias. All the news networks care about ratings more than anything else.

Don't even get me started on Headline News. I still watch it, but Jesus has it gone down hill since the early days.

Used to be it was Chuck Roberts sitting at a desk with a stark black background and reading actual news for thirty minutes.

Now it looks like Epcot Center; they use ten anchors to do the job of one person; half of their 10 minute news loop is just them teasing stories to come later; Christie Paul can't read from a teleprompter to save her life; Nancy Grace, Glenn Beck, Showbiz Tonight, etc., etc.

Oh yeah, and it's now 75% fluff/news of the weird crap.

[Homyrrh]

Don't even get me started on Headline News. I still watch it, but Jesus has it gone down hill since the early days.

Used to be it was Chuck Roberts sitting at a desk with a stark black background and reading actual news for thirty minutes.

Now it looks like Epcot Center; they use ten anchors to do the job of one person; half of their 10 minute news loop is just them teasing stories to come later; Christie Paul can't read from a teleprompter to save her life; Nancy Grace, Glenn Beck, Showbiz Tonight, etc., etc.

Oh yeah, and it's now 75% fluff/news of the weird crap.
On that note, I'm depressed with the amount of celeb/showbiz "news" contained in any broadcasts on any network.

[bigred760]

What? *Turns to CNN*
"...alright then, how can you even attempt to prove McCain actually served in the Navy..."


You're going to have to tell me when that actually aired.

I don't watch FOX because it's mostly Republican propaganda. But while CNN isn't perfect, they cover both nominees pretty equally . . . some good, some bad. Most of the time, they cover what the other's doing and what one said about the other - all the "jabbing" that usually goes on in political races.

[bigred760]

Now it looks like Epcot Center; they use ten anchors to do the job of one person; half of their 10 minute news loop is just them teasing stories to come later; Christie Paul can't read from a teleprompter to save her life; Nancy Grace, Glenn Beck, Showbiz Tonight, etc., etc.

I don't even think there are 10 anchors working there.


Oh yeah, and it's now 75% fluff/news of the weird crap.

I'll give you that.

[Homyrrh]

You're going to have to tell me when that actually aired.

I don't watch FOX because it's mostly Republican propaganda. But while CNN isn't perfect, they cover both nominees pretty equally . . . some good, some bad. Most of the time, they cover what the other's doing and what one said about the other - all the "jabbing" that usually goes on in political races.
I had mentioned it was a gross hyperbolic paraphrase.

[bigred760]

My point: I watch CNN all the time - I kinda have to - and I see just as much stuff about McCain as I do Obama . . . their speeches, what they're about, and all kinds of crap about their wives. A lot of the time, it's one talking shit about the other . . . same old politics and all that.

I don't watch Fox News because I keep hearing that all they do is push the Republican and bash the Democrat. The minute or two I've seen of the network does tend to go that way.

I don't watch MSNBC.

[jolanar]

Did you guys hear about the story of a Fox news show actually physically altering photographs of liberal thinkers/reporters that they aired on TV.

They made their teeth more yellow, raised hairlines etc. Really just sad.

[QUENTIN]

Solid post.

To briefly elaborate on my sentiment, I feel the "media" doesn't necessarily swing one way or the other. However, there are a lot of major news outlets with a lot of left-leaning pundits. I lsited some, like the Times, but most major newspapers (outside of the Post at least) are liberal papers-- the Tribune, the Globe, etc. Then again, the influence that liberalism has over talk radio is a joke. Nothing.

Blanketing the entire media with one term or the other is subjective, and, as noted before, often a safety plea to elude argument. Of course, Quentin, like you said, crying foul about biased op-ed is elementarily paradoxical; it's the point of the editorial.

I should add that I do read the NY Times daily and watch CNN as much as I do FOX. Why? As a writer and prolific reader, the Times is unsurpassed in it's textual quality and, if ever I do feel there's any bias in what should be objective reporting, I feel I am perpetually wary enough to recognize this and reference further sources. Likewise, I prefer my news from CNN as I trust its objectiveness in this area slightly more than FOX; furthermore, FOX offers pundit programming that has yet to be rivaled by their liberal counterparts. Love him or hate him, O'Reilly's an entertaining guy (and not the square that's been guest-hosting this week).

To conclude, take a look at this recent interview (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/business/media/23askthetimes.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin) with the NY Times political editor, Richard Stevenson. Take a look at this excerpt where he answers two questions from readers about th Times' bias:




Interesting interview, thanks for posting it.

What I was asking though wasn't really whether you thought "the media is liberal," but how you seemed to equate Fox News, NY Post, and Talk Radio with CNN, MSNBC, and the NY Times and I wondered whether you really think they're equally or even remotely similarly biased. I certainly don't think they are, and most media studies I've read also seem to show that they're not.

Fox News, the NY Post, and most Talk Radio stations never attempt any kind of objectivity or fair journalism. Their reporters, writers, corporate brass, managers, and owners are all openly conservative and they clearly, even blatantly support the GOP and deride liberals and democrats every chance they get. They're not even really news I don't think, they're commentary. The reporting and commentary on the reporting that tells the reader/listener/viewer how to judge the story are inextricably linked. The total purpose of reporting stories for them is to push a viewpoint, not to inform their audience but to manipulate them.

CNN, MSNBC, NY Times and other mainstream media outlets often cited as liberal aren't in the same ballpark, don't play the same game. They report the news, and perhaps there is some kind of subtle liberal bias (I haven't seen any evidence of that either empirically or in my experience, but let's say there really is some) but if it's there it is restrained, minor, and not the point of the story. They are there to spread information and if a bias occurs, it is an accidental byproduct of the fact that most journalists are liberal, not an agenda of the network or paper.

A channel may have more conservative talk show hosts than another or a newspaper might have more liberals writing editorials, but those sorts of things don't apply I think. O'Reilly doesn't make Fox conservative and Olberman doesn't make MSNBC liberal. Those are outlets where one expects an agenda, a viewpoint, a bias, but turning every dime-a-dozen story into a "major scandal" for the Obama camp and asking whether McCain is "too patriotic" for young voters during the regular 24 hour news program is what sets Fox News apart and makes it such a subject of criticism.

I guess what I was getting at is, do you really feel the first three media outlets you named are the equal opposites of the last three or do you admit that the bias in the former is much stronger and more intentional than in the latter? There are liberal outlets as fervent and slanted as Fox News or talk radio, but they're relatively small niche businesses like Air America or Dailykos. In mainstream news I really think there is no comparison and that the facts are with me there, it's not just because I happen to be liberal.

Of course the bias all the major outlets share is for sensationalism and the agenda they have in common is to sell more ads, so I'm not suggesting CNN and the ilk practice good journalism, only that they are more respected because they practice exponentially more fair and objective journalism.

[Homyrrh]

Interesting interview, thanks for posting it.

What I was asking though wasn't really whether you thought "the media is liberal," but how you seemed to equate Fox News, NY Post, and Talk Radio with CNN, MSNBC, and the NY Times and I wondered whether you really think they're equally or even remotely similarly biased. I certainly don't think they are, and most media studies I've read also seem to show that they're not.

Fox News, the NY Post, and most Talk Radio stations never attempt any kind of objectivity or fair journalism. Their reporters, writers, corporate brass, managers, and owners are all openly conservative and they clearly, even blatantly support the GOP and deride liberals and democrats every chance they get. They're not even really news I don't think, they're commentary. The reporting and commentary on the reporting that tells the reader/listener/viewer how to judge the story are inextricably linked. The total purpose of reporting stories for them is to push a viewpoint, not to inform their audience but to manipulate them.

CNN, MSNBC, NY Times and other mainstream media outlets often cited as liberal aren't in the same ballpark, don't play the same game. They report the news, and perhaps there is some kind of subtle liberal bias (I haven't seen any evidence of that either empirically or in my experience, but let's say there really is some) but if it's there it is restrained, minor, and not the point of the story. They are there to spread information and if a bias occurs, it is an accidental byproduct of the fact that most journalists are liberal, not an agenda of the network or paper.

A channel may have more conservative talk show hosts than another or a newspaper might have more liberals writing editorials, but those sorts of things don't apply I think. O'Reilly doesn't make Fox conservative and Olberman doesn't make MSNBC liberal. Those are outlets where one expects an agenda, a viewpoint, a bias, but turning every dime-a-dozen story into a "major scandal" for the Obama camp and asking whether McCain is "too patriotic" for young voters during the regular 24 hour news program is what sets Fox News apart and makes it such a subject of criticism.

I guess what I was getting at is, do you really feel the first three media outlets you named are the equal opposites of the last three or do you admit that the bias in the former is much stronger and more intentional than in the latter? There are liberal outlets as fervent and slanted as Fox News or talk radio, but they're relatively small niche businesses like Air America or Dailykos. In mainstream news I really think there is no comparison and that the facts are with me there, it's not just because I happen to be liberal.

Of course the bias all the major outlets share is for sensationalism and the agenda they have in common is to sell more ads, so I'm not suggesting CNN and the ilk practice good journalism, only that they are more respected because they practice exponentially more fair and objective journalism.
My initial intent was to simply refute and avoid the recurring biased press thread. I may have actually enacted quite the inverse.

Regarding this post though, I feel that people often confuse subjectiveness and objectiveness and feel everything is supposed to be the latter. Yes, FOX genuinely slants further right more than its counterparts do left. However, this becomes overexaggerated because their pundits like Hannity or Cavuto or O'Reilly or Ingraham, etc. are conservatives. You can't condemn a newspaper for this if they have a majority of slanted columnists, i.e. - the NY Times.

FOX and CNN are stations structured differently from one another too. The former grabs its viewers with entertaining condemnations of liberal agendas with some cheeky old characters, and the latter generally offers a platform of reporting over ranting, consequently garnering a lot mroe legitimacy in calling itself unbiased.

Many people hear talk radio on their drive to work and don't realize that talk radio, while entirely and uncompromisingly dominated by the right, makes little claim to being objective reporting, wrongly cry abotu some grave injustice.

In all, I don't understand a lot of the disadin for reporting at present. I am conservative more than I am anything else, and I still read my Times daily. It ultimately creates the msot objective news consumption I can get. Meanwhile, I'm going to watch FOX when I get home from work to see what Hannity or O'Reilly have to say about "those darn liberals" and their doings, fully realizing the innate bias of their punditry.

Also, to excuse a bias on the Times part by saying "most journalists are liberal"--which, by simple nature of the profession, is rather true--is wrong. A paper on any level, but especially that of the most renowned in the nation, should have checks and balances in it's reporting, though most conservative station chiefs and publishers and executives (like you had mentioned) usually counter this.

[MadsenOMC]

The Media Equation

When Fox News Is the Story

By DAVID CARR

Like most working journalists, whenever I type seven letters — Fox News — a series of alarms begins to whoop in my head: Danger. Warning. Much mayhem ahead.

Once the public relations apparatus at Fox News is engaged, there will be the calls to my editors, keening (and sometimes threatening) e-mail messages, and my requests for interviews will quickly turn into depositions about my intent or who else I am talking to.

And if all that stuff doesn’t slow me down and I actually end up writing something, there might be a large hangover: Phone calls full of rebuke for a dependent clause in the third to the last paragraph, a ritual spanking in the blogs with anonymous quotes that sound very familiar, and — if I really hit the jackpot — the specter of my ungainly headshot appearing on one of Fox News’s shows along with some stern copy about what an idiot I am.

Part of me — the Irish, tribal part — admires Fox News’s ferocious defense of its guys. I work at a place where editors can make easy sport of teasing apart your flawed copy until it collapses in a steaming pile, but Lord help those outsiders who make an unwarranted or unfounded attack on me or my work. Our tactics may be different, but we, too, are strong for our posse.

Media reporting about other media’s approach to producing media is pretty confusing business to begin with. Feelings, which are always raw for people who make their mistakes in public, will be bruised. But that does not fully explain the scorched earth between Fox News and those who cover it.

Fox News found a huge runway and enormous success by setting aside the conventions of bloodless objectivity, but along the way, it altered the rules of engagement between reporters and the media organizations they cover. Under its chief executive, Roger Ailes, Fox News and its public relations apparatus have waged a permanent campaign on behalf of the channel that borrows its methodology from his days as a senior political adviser to Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.

At Fox News, media relations is a kind of rolling opposition research operation intended to keep reporters in line by feeding and sometimes maiming them. Shooting the occasional messenger is baked right into the process.

As crude as that sounds, it works. By blacklisting reporters it does not like, planting stories with friendlies at every turn, Fox News has been living a life beyond consequence for years. Honesty compels me to admit that I have choked a few times at the keyboard when Fox News has come up in a story and it was not absolutely critical to the matter at hand.

But it cuts both ways: Fox News’s amazing coup d’état in the cable news war has very likely been undercovered because the organization is such a handful to deal with. Fox is so busy playing defense — mentioning it in the same story as CNN can be a high crime — that its business and journalism accomplishments don’t get traction and the cable station never seems to attain the legitimacy it so clearly craves.

There have been few stories about Bill O’Reilly’s softer side (I’m sure he has one), and while Shepard Smith’s amazing reporting in New Orleans got some play, he was not cast as one of the journalistic heroes of the disaster. The fact that Roger Ailes has won both Obie awards and Emmys does not come up a lot, nor does the fact that he donated a significant chunk of money to upgrade the student newsroom at Ohio University, his alma mater.

Instead, Mr. Ailes and Brian Lewis, his longtime head of public relations, act as if every organization that covers them is a potential threat and, in the process, have probably made it far more likely. And as the cable news race has tightened, because CNN has gained ground during a big election year, Fox News has become more prone to lashing out. Fun is fun, but it is getting uglier by the day out there.

•

A little more than a week ago, Jacques Steinberg, a reporter at The New York Times who covers television, wrote a straight-up-the-middle ratings story about cable news. His article acknowledged that while CNN was using a dynamic election to push Fox News from behind, Fox was still No. 1. Despite repeated calls, the public relations people at Fox News did not return his requests for comment. (In a neat trick, while they were ignoring his calls, they e-mailed his boss asking why they had not heard from him.)

After the article ran, Brian Kilmeade and Steve Doocy of “Fox and Friends,” the reliable water carriers on the morning show on the cable network, did a segment suggesting that Mr. Steinberg’s editor was a disgruntled former employee — Steven V. Reddicliffe once edited TV Guide, which was until recently owned by the News Corporation — and that Mr. Steinberg was his trained attack dog. (The audience was undoubtedly wondering what the heck they were talking about.)

The accompanying photographs were heavily altered, although the audience was probably none the wiser. Mr. Reddicliffe looked like the wicked witch after a hard night of drinking, but it was the photo of Mr. Steinberg that stopped traffic when it appeared on the Web at Media Matters side by side with his actual photo. In a technique familiar to students of vintage German propaganda, his ears were pulled out, his teeth splayed apart, his forehead lowered and his nose was widened and enlarged in a way that made him look more like Fagin than the guy I work with. (Mr. Steinberg told me that as a working reporter who covers Fox News, he was not in a position to comment. A spokeswoman said the executive in charge of “Fox and Friends” is on vacation and not available for comment but added that altering photos for humorous effect is a common practice on cable news stations.)

It’s a particularly vivid example of how the Fox response team works, but hardly the only one. Julia Angwin of The Wall Street Journal wrote a profile of Roger Ailes in 2005. Again, her coverage was right up the middle, but that is not the way that Fox News saw it, and she was held out for ridicule over and over in items on various blogs penned by Fox News staff when she jumped the gun on the start date for the Fox business channel. (Ms. Angwin is on book leave and did not answer a message left on her cellphone.)

Earlier this year, a colleague of mine said, he was writing a story about CNN’s gains in the ratings and was told on deadline by a Fox News public relations executive that if he persisted, “they” would go after him. Within a day, “they” did, smearing him around the blogs, he said. (I did not ask him for a comment because the information was of a private nature.)

Some of the avenues of attack are easier to anticipate than others. Right now, there are advance copies circulating of a reported memoir I wrote about my times as a drug addict and drunk. I’ve already been called a “crack addict” on Bill O’Reilly’s show, which at least has the virtue of being true, if a little vintage. Expect a return engagement with some added detail. I have a bit of an advantage in that my laundry is already hanging on the line, not to mention that with a face made out of potatoes, the Photoshopped picture of me will have to go a long way to make me any uglier than I actually am. Having pointed a crooked columnist finger at Fox, at least I have it coming. Not so for many of the beat reporters who go to work every day confronted by a public relations machine that will go feral if it doesn’t get what it wants.

When I started calling around about Fox News, Mr. Lewis, the public relations head, made himself available on very short notice on the Fourth of July. He patiently explained that while yes, the game had changed, it was hardly in the way I was describing. There are no dark ops, he said, and no blacklist — “a myth” — only good relationships and bad ones.

Mr. Lewis said that members of his staff were not in the business of altering photos, that they had no control over stories that appeared on “Fox and Friends” or other shows, and he pointed out that it makes their job harder when they go after reporters. He called my suggestion that there was something anti-Semitic about the depiction of Mr. Steinberg “vile and untrue.” Mr. Lewis denied that his staff had threatened one of my colleagues or planted private information about him on blogs.

That comes as a surprise to reporters I talked to who say they have received e-mail messages from Fox News public relations staff that contained doctored photos, anonymous quotes and nasty items about competitors. And two former Fox employees said that they had participated in precisely those kinds of activities but had signed confidentiality agreements and could not say so on the record.

“Yes, we are an aggressive department in a passive industry, and believe me, the executives and talent appreciate it,” Mr. Lewis said, adding that with the 24-hour news cycle and the proliferation of blogs, a new kind of engagement and activism was required.

“We are the biggest target in the industry and we accept that,” he said. “We embrace controversy,” but he said that he and his colleagues respect that reporters have a job to do.

Many of the television-beat reporters I called had horror stories, but few were willing to be quoted. In the last several years, reporters from The Associated Press, several large newspapers and various trade publications have said they were shut out from getting their calls returned because of stories they had written. Editors do not want to hear why your calls are not being returned, they just want you to fix the problem, or perhaps they will fix it by finding someone else to do your job.

David Folkenflik, now the media reporter for National Public Radio, ended up on the outs with Fox News in 2001 when he was at The Baltimore Sun. After he wrote that Fox’s Geraldo Rivera had not been at the site of an incident of friendly fire in Afghanistan as he had told viewers, Mr. Folkenflik said, his calls to Fox News were not returned for more than 15 months.

“My sense was that it was designed to make it appear that I was having trouble doing my job, but also to intimate that the people who cross them will be shut out,” he said.

Mr. Folkenflik said he did not take it personally because it was not aimed just at him. “I think it is a notably aggressive effort to manage the Fox News brand and image,” he said. “I think it is suffused with a political sensibility, and I don’t think it is any secret that it comes from the top with Roger Ailes. They behave less like a competitive news outlet and more like a political campaign when it comes to managing coverage.”

But he holds no grudge.

“I currently have a perfectly good relationship with Fox News,” Mr. Folkenflik said. “I touch base with them all the time, and I write the good and bad news as it occurs.”

Bill Carter has covered television for The New York Times for many years and has always had a good working relationship with Fox News, but he was appalled to see what he viewed as an anti-Semitic caricature of Mr. Steinberg, a colleague and a friend.

“I have not had a big problem with them, in part because their success has been such a great story, but this seemed over the line and really hateful,” Mr. Carter said. “It doesn’t seem like you can deal with them professionally. You do this kind of thing to a guy who’s writing a story for a newspaper?”

Fox News has long held that it is its politics and not its tactics that set it apart and require such vigilance. But working reporters have been shaking their heads for years about the nightmare of dealing with Fox News and as a result, the antagonism they believe they are fighting against seems to be on the march.

Mr. Lewis made it clear that Fox News has no problem working with reporters when they don’t have an agenda, and of course, I called with a very clear one. For the record, everyone I dealt with at Fox News in connection with this column was polite, highly responsive, and got right to the point, while still not giving ground on a single material fact. A guy could get used to that.

[SpoonMan999]

We all acknowledge that Fox is heavily biased, what pisses me off about some of the left wing publications and shows is that they all claim to be fair. They hire one Conservative columnist and claim it's balanced. Fox claiming to be fair and balanced is a jab at organizations like this. I think Fox is hilarious most of the time in the way they say their opinion, which Democrats are supposedly all for, and get blasted for speaking their minds.

[MadsenOMC]

We all acknowledge that Fox is heavily biased, what pisses me off about some of the left wing publications and shows is that they all claim to be fair. They hire one Conservative columnist and claim it's balanced. Fox claiming to be fair and balanced is a jab at organizations like this. I think Fox is hilarious most of the time in the way they say their opinion, which Democrats are supposedly all for, and get blasted for speaking their minds.

People don't blast Fox for "speaking their minds." They blast Fox for claiming to be Fair & Balanced and being anything but.

I have a feeling the "left wing publications" you are referring to aren't actually left wing at all, just to the left of right. Fox is jabbing at them because they don't blow this administration on a daily basis the way the FNC does.

[QUENTIN]

We all acknowledge that Fox is heavily biased, what pisses me off about some of the left wing publications and shows is that they all claim to be fair. They hire one Conservative columnist and claim it's balanced. Fox claiming to be fair and balanced is a jab at organizations like this. I think Fox is hilarious most of the time in the way they say their opinion, which Democrats are supposedly all for, and get blasted for speaking their minds.

That's what my conversation with Homyrrh was about. What left wing publications and shows? Provide some examples. Fox News has no equivalent station, the New York Post has no equivalent paper, there are no mainstream media outlets that slant left even a quarter as much as those slant right. No bias has been shown on CNN, MSNBC, etc. so if it's there it's gotta be awful subtle and minor. The only popular news outlets that are decidedly liberal are online, but even then I think the most popular is The Drudge Report. Reporting a fuck-up of the Bush administration doesn't make a station liberal, it makes it a news provider. They covered Clinton's fuck-ups just as much if not more.

[SpoonMan999]

That's what my conversation with Homyrrh was about. What left wing publications and shows? Provide some examples. Fox News has no equivalent station, the New York Post has no equivalent paper, there are no mainstream media outlets that slant left even a quarter as much as those slant right. No bias has been shown on CNN, MSNBC, etc. so if it's there it's gotta be awful subtle and minor. The only popular news outlets that are decidedly liberal are online, but even then I think the most popular is The Drudge Report. Reporting a fuck-up of the Bush administration doesn't make a station liberal, it makes it a news provider. They covered Clinton's fuck-ups just as much if not more.

To say that there are none out there is just ignorant.

Also, you're correct they are subtle and do not push their agenda nearly as hard as Fox or the Post may. However, they greatly out number the right-wing media and that's why the right-wing decided to push harder. Any opposition cause an equally powerful reaction.

[MadsenOMC]

To say that there are none out there is just ignorant.

Prove it. How are these publications you refer to liberal? I watch them all day and I am dying to know what you are seeing that I am not.

[QUENTIN]

If I'm just ignorant, please enlighten me.

Name some mainstream news stations or papers that are liberal and provide evidence of their liberally slanted coverage of the news.

No one has asked since I think it's fairly obvious and agreed upon, but there are volumes upon volumes of articles, books, films, studies, facts, and figures that show pretty conclusively how Fox News intentionally manipulates their coverage to be slanted to the right. If any of these major stations slant left, surely similar information is available.

As Brando pointed out a few posts up, the idea of a "liberal media" has never had much factual basis, it's just an extremely effective way of dodging responsibility for any and every negative story that comes out about the GOP. "We weren't stealing, the war in Iraq is going swimmingly, the attorneys were fired for incompetence, and New Orleans is a paradise, you just can't tell from the portrayal by the damn liberal media."

If anything, I think the media is just now settling back to center after a few years of unapologetically being overall slanted, not right per se, but behind Bush because they wanted to appear "patriotic" during a time of national crisis and figured jingosim and giving the administration an easy pass on going to war was the way to do it.

[SpoonMan999]

Prove it. How are these publications you refer to liberal? I watch them all day and I am dying to know what you are seeing that I am not.

Why? I'll point out a passage of them speaking negatively or shining a negative light on whomever and you'll say, "Yeah, well that's just true." I've conceded any point in which you've proved me wrong but no matter what myself or Hom have said in any thread in this forum you have never come close to even considering that we may be right.

Also, in another thread I thought we all agreed that everything holds some sort of bias? Whether it be a report on CNN or an article in the Times.

Oh an Quentin, we've all acknowledged Fox News is biased. So let's stop trying to prove it as nobody is disagreeing. Just because Fox is biased it doesn't make CNN or NBC unbiased, they're just not to the same degree.

[MadsenOMC]

Why? I'll point out a passage of them speaking negatively or shining a negative light on whomever and you'll say, "Yeah, well that's just true." I've conceded any point in which you've proved me wrong but no matter what myself or Hom have said in any thread in this forum you have never come close to even considering that we may be right.

Just because a news story speaks negatively of something does not prove a widespread liberal bias. Saying something negative about Bush or Iraq does not prove a liberal bias.

I watch CNN and MSNBC daily. There is no liberal bias. So much of it is fluff (CNN Headline News is especially guilty of this, and don't forget that the conservative Glenn Beck is on that channel every night). The conservative Joe Scarborough gets half of every morning on MSNBC.

As far as their news coverage goes, there simply isn't a liberal bias. If they are guilty of anything it's reporting the same stories incessantly or reporting stories that are light on actual news.

[QUENTIN]

Why? I'll point out a passage of them speaking negatively or shining a negative light on whomever and you'll say, "Yeah, well that's just true." I've conceded any point in which you've proved me wrong but no matter what myself or Hom have said in any thread in this forum you have never come close to even considering that we may be right.

Also, in another thread I thought we all agreed that everything holds some sort of bias? Whether it be a report on CNN or an article in the Times.

Oh an Quentin, we've all acknowledged Fox News is biased. So let's stop trying to prove it as nobody is disagreeing. Just because Fox is biased it doesn't make CNN or NBC unbiased, they're just not to the same degree.

We all agree Fox News is biased because of the mountain of incontrovertible evidence that shows them to be biased. I wasn't trying to prove it, I'm saying the reason we all agree is because we can point to the ample evidence. No such evidence exists that CNN or MSNBC are biased, which is why we we are trying (futilely as always with you) to debate that. Just because you say a station is biased doesn't make it so.

[SpoonMan999]

... which is why we we are trying (futilely as always with you) to debate that. Just because you say a station is biased doesn't make it so.

Funny, I've conceded being wrong before. You throw out people's arguments then ask for another when they disagree.

[notchreturns]

Abrams and Olbermann are incredibly bias and bash anything to the right.

Even Matthews leans hard for Obama.

I'm a pretty liberal guy and enjoy these shows, but it is pretty obvious.

[Cop No. 633]

Abrams and Olbermann are incredibly bias and bash anything to the right.

Even Matthews leans hard for Obama.

I'm a pretty liberal guy and enjoy these shows, but it is pretty obvious.

Notch, that's only 3 pundits being biased in a political "rant" style segment of a news program. That doesn't prove that the entire news program on a whole is biased. It's a big difference than Fox News who have sent memos to their own "journalists" to imply lies or distort facts. Look at the debacle they have going on now with those photos. I'd like to see people dig up something as slanderous from CNN.

The whole liberal bias of the media is a myth. The only bias as Bubba pointed out, is to the ratings and to the advertisers. The media (the people behind the curtain, not the pundits) only cares about how well its competing against other stations and how much money people are investing. If the media was really liberal, most of the news stories wouldn't be about celebrities, scandals or stupid puff pieces on insignificant events. If it was liberal, the news programs wouldn't have been so soft on Bush during the beginning of the Iraq War. It was the stupid, "Let's shut up and be patriotic" routine that kept so many Americans ignorant on the war. There's still people who believe Saddam had WMD's or was in some way connected to 9/11. That's because of the media. If the media was progressive in anyway, our citizens would be better informed about what's happening in the world. Unfortunately, most of us aren't and we'll continue to be cogs in the wheel of a car that's being driven by sociopaths with lots of money and an array of weapons to bully the world with.

[MadsenOMC]

Abrams and Olbermann are incredibly bias and bash anything to the right.

Even Matthews leans hard for Obama.

I'm a pretty liberal guy and enjoy these shows, but it is pretty obvious.

Nobody is arguing that those guys are not liberal. We are talking about the media as a whole and networks as a whole. Big difference.

[The Heart Collector]

There is nothing with political commentators having a slant, or even reporting to a target audience, in Fox's case conservatives.


The problem with Fox is the quality of their discourse is abysmal. Almost everyone they have on staff is a shit eating retard that has no idea what the fuck he/she is talking about, nothing even remotely resembling pertinent issues is ever discussed, etcetera.

[SpoonMan999]

There is nothing with political commentators having a slant, or even reporting to a target audience, in Fox's case conservatives.


The problem with Fox is the quality of their discourse is abysmal. Almost everyone they have on staff is a shit eating retard that has no idea what the fuck he/she is talking about, nothing even remotely resembling pertinent issues is ever discussed, etcetera.

They bring up relevant issues they just fill in the gaps between with trivial shit...oh wait every news station does that.