Liberal Media?
Hey folks. In a recent comment to one of my blogs someone mentioned the "liberal media." I hear a lot about the liberal media, and I'm interested in this. What makes the media "liberal." Is it the coverage of the issues or the journalists themselves? Is it all media or just certain outlets? How about The Star? We're actually owned by a libertarian company....
Don't be shy now, folks. Leave your constructive comment....
Don't be shy now, folks. Leave your constructive comment....
posted by John Derrick | 7:01 PM
5 Comments:
It is obvious that the traditional, big media outlets are all supportive of liberal candidates and liberal ideals. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and their subsidiaries always support liberal causes and spin news to support liberal points of view. Sometimes even going so far as to invent news as is the case with Dan Rather. Fox does seem to present both sides. The Star doesn't appear to have a slant either way. I do think the Star wastes time on some subjects while not speaking at all about others.
Whenever there is a pro-choice march, the traditional media like ABC, CBS, NBC ect., will spin and promote every way possible. They use camera angles to hide the fact that only 10 or 12 people are there. They do everything to make is appear that it was a great success with much support. Then when there are pro-life people, sometimes at the same event, these same media outlets skew things to appear that only a few pro-life people were there with little support. Scientist that support concepts, or theories such as "Global Warming" are given extensive coverage while opposing view points which are just as valid are suppressed or given little attention. Even the expression on the reporters faces give them away. Just watch election returns. Whenever republicans make gains, these big media reporters faces drop in sync. And vice versa for democratic gains. For even more information just look at Media Research Center on the web, I think it's www.mrc.org.
Ditto--If Jim Black were a Republican this scandal would have been on the front page of every newspaper for the last year. It would be the lead story of every local TV news show. It's only really starting to be covered now because of the hearings. If he were a Republican that's all we would here about.
A 2004 Pew Research Center poll found journalist were 5 times more likely to be liberal or democrat than said they were conservative.
In 2005 ex CBS news president Van Gourden Sauter said he stopped watching CBS because "The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me". There are almost no instance of good news from Iraq in the old media, while the new media of the internet, Fox and others do show the good news we all know is there. The old media labeled Ruth Bader Ginsberg as a moderate and Justice Alito as an extremist which is ludicrous. The old media has all but ignored documented reports of Russian Spetsnaz troops moving WMD's to Syria before our invasion while they continually say "Bush lied".
While the media trumpet, "domestic spying" in an attempt to damage Bush, they say nonthing of the examples of past leaders doing it. Jimmy Carter is scolding this president for doing the exact same thing he did in 1977. While FISA was enacted in 1978 is does show the hypicrisy. Only the Washinton Times is carrying this so far, let's see who else jumps in. They also rarely mention the fact that Clinton used domestic surveilance on many occasions. The old media acts as if Bush is the first one to do it.
Post a Comment
<< Home