Here is an interesting article on NPR from 2004. If you want to just skip ahead to the "Liberal Bias?" section., that's fine, but the whole article is interesting and debunks a few urban legands / myths about NPR.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Now this is too funny......
- Thread starter sasquatch
- Start date
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Sasquatch
I would completely agree that the media, including FOX, has a complete anti-gun bias. I would not call this a liberal bias since being pro or anti gun has nothing to do with being a true liberal or a true conservative. Most republicans I have met have been just as anti-gun as most democrats I have met. I would call it a societal bias since being anti-gun seems to be prevelant in most of society. They take the anti-gun stance because they know most people are anti-gun and it will boost rating when they produce "guns are bad" pieces.
When most people try to accuse the media of a liberal bias they are saying the the media promotes the democrats stance and degrades the republican stance. I have just not found this to be true. When it comes to politics I have seen the news reflect which ever party is in powers viewpoint the most.
I would completely agree that the media, including FOX, has a complete anti-gun bias. I would not call this a liberal bias since being pro or anti gun has nothing to do with being a true liberal or a true conservative. Most republicans I have met have been just as anti-gun as most democrats I have met. I would call it a societal bias since being anti-gun seems to be prevelant in most of society. They take the anti-gun stance because they know most people are anti-gun and it will boost rating when they produce "guns are bad" pieces.
When most people try to accuse the media of a liberal bias they are saying the the media promotes the democrats stance and degrades the republican stance. I have just not found this to be true. When it comes to politics I have seen the news reflect which ever party is in powers viewpoint the most.
Playboypenguin
Did you actually read that study I provided, "A Measure of Media Bias" ?
If so, please show me just one instance of the authors "calling into question the character of the person" reading the news in order to bolster their study.
"When most people try to accuse the media of a liberal bias they are saying the the media promotes the democrats stance and degrades the republican stance. I have just not found this to be true."
Did you actually read that study I provided, "A Measure of Media Bias" ?
If so, please show me just one instance of the authors "calling into question the character of the person" reading the news in order to bolster their study.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Yes, I read it. All it was to me was a grand example of manipulative math. Coming up with a conclusion and then trying to create a numbers system that supports it.Did you actually read that study I provided, "A Measure of Media Bias" ?
I did not see any real examples of bias. I did not see instances where facts were altered, I did not see exmples of of major stories being buried or manipulated, and I did not see examples of the major media presenting only one side of a polital story.
I did see them mentioning how the reporters themselves voted, what their opinions were, and how the identify themselves.
I see them trying to say quoting a non-partisan think tank that does not support republican claims as a "liberal" source.
I do not see them labeling the Heritage foundation as a propagada source like it is truely.
I do not see them taking into account the air time of either side of the argument.
I do not see them taking into account that republicans were actually given more face time than democrats.
I see them give examples of a conservative viewpoint not being aired but they do it without context as to how many liberal viewpoints recieve the same treatment.
If this liberal bias is so rampant why are they not able to give true accounts that can be well documented? Where are all the documented instances of the major networks giving more time to democrats or slanting a story towards the left?
Did you read the report that Secdef linked? I think it does a better job of explaining the myth of the liberal bias.
I haven't heard an answer to Dan Rather's report about GWB service record. Then failing to report on Kerry's lies about being in Cambodia. Bias.
I didn't hear a response to my statement about Britt Hume's show FOX news which is after all their news report. Let's hear an example of Conservative bias in Special Report?
What about Bernie Goldberg? Why has Rather not sued him for his slanderous (if not true) claims?
I didn't hear a response to my statement about Britt Hume's show FOX news which is after all their news report. Let's hear an example of Conservative bias in Special Report?
What about Bernie Goldberg? Why has Rather not sued him for his slanderous (if not true) claims?
Playboypenguin
Moderator
Rather read a story that was a plant. He then appologized for it. The part you do not see in the news is that the Bush's commandng officer and the secretary both said that the content of the story was pretty much correct but the documentation was false.I haven't heard an answer to Dan Rather's report about GWB service record
Fail to report????? I saw that story a hundred times on CNN, CBA, and NBC. Even though there is no evidence he actually lied. O'Neil claimed that Kerry lied but there is evidence that he was indeed in Cambodia on x-mas of 1968.hen failing to report on Kerry's lies about being in Cambodia. Bias.
Slander is very hard to prove. You not only have to show the person made statements that he knew to be false, but you also have to show that you suffered damages from his statement.What about Bernie Goldberg? Why has Rather not sued him for his slanderous (if not true) claims?
Slander is very hard to prove. You not only have to show the person made statements that he knew to be false, but you also have to show that you suffered damages from his statement.
As is bias. I know it when I see it.
An old sales training lesson is the manipulation of inflection and punctuation. Have you ever took a sentence and emphasized each word in the sentence to make the sentence mean something different?
Example: I told PP I disagree with him.
I told PP I disagree with him.
I told PP I disagree with him.
I told PP I disagree with him. etc.
Putting emphasis and inflection on every word results in 7 different meanings to this sentence. This is the exact ploy used by all media people both conservative and liberal to inject their opinion or bias into a story. Nobody has claimed that anyone lies (except Rather), they just choose how to present the facts.
Again I state that anyone who can see bias on FOX but not on other networks are only kidding themselves. And also again why wouldn't the big 3 go out of their way to place people at the top of their news organizations which would disprove claims of bias? Instead they go out of their way to place the most outspoken partisans at the top.
targetshootr
New member
I guess all we have to do to is wait to see how many conservatives drop out of debates on, uh, 'liberal' networks. The thing that amuses me about Fox is how well they play the victim, complaining "everybody's-out-to-get-us", and in the next breath bully the poor or queers or teachers or do-gooders.
The comments on this thread are astounding. Obviously many of the writers are not conservatives, since if they were the liberal bias of the major TV networks would be readily apparent. Only a liberal could state that the networks are unbiased, and keep a straight face when saying it. But more importantly, I find it amazing and distressing that gun supporters (and I assume, maybe incorrectly that no one would be reading or participating in this forum unless they basically support gun rights) could still be supporting the liberals. While a portion of the Republicans are anti-gun, virtually all liberal politicians are anti-gun, and more importantly, the Democrat party at its core is strongly anti-gun. Hilary Clinton has clear disdain for the common people, and has vigorously supported every gun control bill that has ever come before her. Barack Obama is possibly even worse, having established an anti-gun rights record as a State Senator in Illinois, totally supporting the Daley of Chicago initiatives to take our guns and gun rights away. Edwards is an opportunist, and as a Senator never stood up for gun owners rights (but I have to admit I am not really knowledgable about his voting record during his one term as a Senator). If you value the 2nd Amendment, if you believe it is your God given right to defend yourself and your family, and not be reduced to calling 911 and waiting for the cops to draw your body print with chalk on the ground, then I cannot fathom how you could support the Democrats. I guess its possible for there to be a pro-2A socialist out there, but I never met one myself.
JuanCarlos
New member
If you value the 2nd Amendment, if you believe it is your God given right to defend yourself and your family, and not be reduced to calling 911 and waiting for the cops to draw your body print with chalk on the ground, then I cannot fathom how you could support the Democrats. I guess its possible for there to be a pro-2A socialist out there, but I never met one myself.
For one, while I don't consider myself a socialist I do support some semi-socialist programs. And I'd say I'm a supporter of the second amendment. Also, you may want to consider for a moment that there are civil liberties issues that the Republican party (and "conservatives") are just as atrocious on as the Democrats/"liberals" are regarding gun rights...and that not everybody sets their priorities the same way you do.
vito
BINGO !!! I haven't been able to keep a straight face when reading Playboypenguin's stuff. More than once I laughed out loud, which brought my spouse in from another room to see what was so funny. She read his stuff and laughed out loud, as well. He apparently has a future as a stand-up comic.
Well said. Numerous times on these threads someone has made the asinine statement that there are as many anti-gun Republican politicians as there are anti-gun Democrats. Or that Republicans are no better at protecting our 2A rights than are Democrats. Each time I have confronted them with facts, and they manage to slink off.
"The comments on this thread are astounding. Obviously many of the writers are not conservatives, since if they were the liberal bias of the major TV networks would be readily apparent. Only a liberal could state that the networks are unbiased, and keep a straight face when saying it."
BINGO !!! I haven't been able to keep a straight face when reading Playboypenguin's stuff. More than once I laughed out loud, which brought my spouse in from another room to see what was so funny. She read his stuff and laughed out loud, as well. He apparently has a future as a stand-up comic.
"While a portion of the Republicans are anti-gun, virtually all liberal politicians are anti-gun, and more importantly, the Democrat party at its core is strongly anti-gun."
Well said. Numerous times on these threads someone has made the asinine statement that there are as many anti-gun Republican politicians as there are anti-gun Democrats. Or that Republicans are no better at protecting our 2A rights than are Democrats. Each time I have confronted them with facts, and they manage to slink off.
Many liberals do not consider themselves liberal, but just "mainstream independents". So when they see their views reflected in the TV media they consider the media unbiased, i.e., mainstream. I know many individuals who deny they are liberals, but they are anti-gun, pro-high taxes and increased government involvement in all aspects of life, more concerned with punishing the rich than in creating an environment where the poor can improve themselves, etc., etc. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck, I guess its a duck. Liberals generally see themselves as victims, and see most others as victims, and want the government to save them. Conservatives have a much greater sense of personal responsibility and a willingness to accept the consequences of their own actions. I am always amused at liberals who want "the government" to pay for programs, services, goods, etc. who will not acknowledge that when the government pays it means that someone else is taxed to give the funds to the government to provide that service. A state legislator yesterday called for "the govenment" to provide an I-pod to every school child in his state. That seems to sound better than to say he wants to take money out of my wallet to buy that I-pod for a child whose parent won't or cannot buy one for him/her.