Thursday, October 05, 2006

Media Bias - A Challenge to The Left

October 5, 2006

Okay Liberals. We on the right claim the mainstream media is biased against President Bush. You say it isn't and in fact, is sympathetic and gives him a pass on most issues.

We both can't be right, so here is your chance to prove me or all of us wrong.

All you need do is post articles or links to any articles, positive about President George W.Bush from any of the mainstream sources since January 20, 2001. Sources such as CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, The New York Times, The Chicago Times, The L.A. Times and such.

Show us up, prove us wrong.

Lew

FEEL FREE TO SPREAD THIS CHALLENGE TO ANY LIBERAL WISHING TO TAKE UP THE CHALLENGE AND PROVE ME WRONG

14 comments:

Ms. Calabaza said...

and we keep waiting . . . tic, tic, tic . . .

winnowhead said...

If you're going to talk about "the media" as a monolithic entity, then the only universal bias is the drive to maximize profits.

I don't care to to engage you in simplistic questions like "is 'the media' liberal or conservative?" "The media" is not monolithic. But spend 2 minutes at mediamatters.org for plenty of stories from mainstream media outlets that misrepresent reality either through a conservative bias or laziness.

Lew said...

Sorry, but this exercise is find out which way the majority of the media is biased, as so many claim it is.

It is really a simple challenge to the left that claims the right (meaning Bush) receives a pass from mainstream media.

All media is biased today. Now, which way are they biased? If biased for Bush, as has been claimed by several, especially on DemocraticUnderground, it should be relatively easy to link to articles anytime during the last 6 years that are pro-Bush.

Mediamatters is, of course, decidedly left of center. I especially like the petition to stop giving airtime to "hatemongers" Ann Coulter, Melanie Morgan and Glenn Beck.

Makes me wonder how they view Al Franken, Rosie O'Donnell, Randi Rhodes, Larry King, Keith Olberman and more. I failed to find any calls for them being silenced. I find Media Research Center to be more centered.

Anonymous said...

P.F.C. Streetsweeper95B here. Had to come by for a visit. Excellent work you are doing here; I like it!

garryowen

doll said...

winnowhead said...
If you're going to talk about "the media" as a monolithic entity, then the only universal bias is the drive to maximize profits.

I don't care to to engage you in simplistic questions like "is 'the media' liberal or conservative?" "The media" is not monolithic. But spend 2 minutes at mediamatters.org for plenty of stories from mainstream media outlets that misrepresent reality either through a conservative bias or laziness.


Hmmmm....sounds to me like Lews exercise just proved his point. This is just too much of a challenge for some.

Anonymous said...

Gosh. it's not like TIME named W. Man of the year twice or anything.

Lew said...

Bush was first named in 2000, before he was President. Again in 2004.

Now, was it because they were positive about him or because they were being negative?

Times Man of the Year Awards are not always in honor of the person, they also make a person Man of the Year feeling they were despots that affecting the world negatively.

Evidence is as Adolf Hitler MOTY in 1938 and Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979.

Anonymous said...

Now, was it because they were positive about him or because they were being negative?

The articles were pretty flattering in both cases. And while Time has always been very clear that it isn't endorsing someone by naming a MotY, they haven't named an infamous figure since 1979; Osama bin Laden was the clear choice in 2001, but they caved to pressure and picked Giuliani instead.

Lew said...

Very good, anonymous. You discovered "one" out of how many editions of Time? Nearly 300 since he took office? 2000 doesn't really count as that was before he took office.

I'll grant you that the article isn't really all that negative. However, if you turn the pages to page 55 (you do have the magazine, do you not?) you will find a section titled, "Grading The President," where the questions are headlined, "A 21st Century visionary? A Failed adventurer abroad? Six scholars suggest how history will judge George W. Bush's first term in office - and compare him with his predecessors."

Following that, we find the headlines of, "Robert Daller - Creating his Own Troubles in Iraq." "Richard Norton Smith - Trumanesque in His Audacity." "Michael Beschloss - Bold, Certainly. Wise? We'll See." "Doris Kearns Goodwin - The President and The Rest of Us." "David M. Kennedy - Sagely Reading America's Mood." "Joseph Ellis - A Missed Moment On Gay Rights."

It would seem to me any glowing accolades they gave him first, they at least tried to take away or minimize in five out of six interviews with History scholars.

Krishna109 said...

This argument ("Is the media biased in a 'liberal' or 'conservative' direction?) has been going on for a long time.

Of course the media isn't monolithic-- i think almost everyone realizes that. However, it seems to me that most of it does have a liberal bias. Of major media outlets, those of a conservative bent are rare-- Fox News and the Wall St Journal come to mind...but there are very few others.

I've always thought it would be interesting to develop an objective way to measure this-- but the problem is, many people can't agree on whether certain newspapers, for example are liberal or conservative.

Its seems to me the best way would be to pick an arbitrary number of media outlets (the biggest ones) and simply list whether they endorsed a Republican or Democrat for President in the last few elections. (This is simplistic, and there are several flaws in this method, but it might reveal a major trend).

My guess is that it would reveal that most of the media is pretty liberal...

However, I'm not going to do this research-- too time consuming for me!

Anonymous said...

Very good, anonymous. You discovered "one" out of how many editions of Time? Nearly 300 since he took office?

Your challenge was "name one." One named. Now you're asking for a thoroughgoing analysis of every issue in the last six years.

Do you need some rest? Goal posts are pretty heavy, and it must be strenuous to move them around so much.

Lew said...

Better luck next time, anon.

Kirshna, I appreciate your thoughts. Much has been said about some survey showing either 61% or 80% of news reporters admitting to a liberal lean. Of course, it is also disputed.

Your thought about seeing who the majority media endorses sounds reasonable too. I might add that seeing how they supported major candidates in their job once elected could help as well.

The media is a very powerful entity, as we all know. Reporting the news shouldn't be used to sway public opinion, as I feel some have done, but to measure public opinion.

Anonymous said...

The media is a very powerful entity, as we all know.

The media are. It's a plural noun. And it's not just a grammar niggle. Treating "the media" as this big monolithic entity, like "the right" or "the left" or "Islam," something that can be summed up in a sentence or two, makes the rest of the discussion pretty much pointless.

Reporting the news shouldn't be used to sway public opinion, as I feel some have done, but to measure public opinion.

It shouldn't do either. Reporting the news means gathering and relating facts. Measuring public opinion is the business of pollsters and pundits, who certainly have their place, but aren't the same as reporters.

Lew said...

You miss the point, anon. Many within the media are currently once again, trying to sway public opinion.

Yes, the "media" is a braod term, but I feel I pretty much identified just which segment of "the media" I am mentioning earlier on.

Thank you for the spanking, though. I will now set myself in the corner for 15 minutes and write "are" on my chalkboard 50 times before bed tonight. ;)