No. I'm not saying anything like that at all.

I am most certainly a liberal. I make no false claims about being centric. My impression of the media is that it is too conservative - but only because they are far more conservative than I. I don't consider it a bias on their part in any way. The only derision I have for the media is in their incompetence.

In my view, it is this incompetence which you claim is their bias. We could start a list, each of us, of all the bias we see in the media. It would be a never ending list and half of it would be liberal bias and half would be conservative bias. To generalize such a vast industry as the media as being more biased in any direction is absurd.

You claim this fact that 80% of journalists who supported Gore actually has some impact on the sum-total information that is dispensed is very easily and effectively defeated by one simple fact: the firestorm of media reports concerning Clinton's blowjob. No liberal media would have spent more than a day on that story. But a media driven by controversy and suseptible to massive levels of incompetence would make it a story for months, as it happened.

You can, and I'm certain you will, continue to whine and moan about a liberal media. Because that's exactly what conservatives must do if they intend to shift the center as they themselves become more and more conservative in their positions. You can't risk extremism - so you need to drag everyone with you to extremism. But it won't work.

But why do you leave out Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal?

I've heard the Christian Science Monitor has about as objective a perspective on the Middle East as possible for our media.

These three print news outlets, along with the two you mentioned, are the most powerful outlets in the United States--even dwarfing the AP in their capabilities and buy power.

If we were to judge the entire print media landscape based on the major players, we have 2 cast as liberal, 2 cast as conservative, and one in the middle.

Ahh, that's why I love independent non-corporate media. They do news for the sake of news, not profit. :thumbsup:

Well you know after reading that site for about 5 minuets it was pretty damn obvious what side they lean to :rolleyes:

You know an agenda is an agenda and it does not need to be monetary.

Ummmm you mentioned about the only two conservative papers I know of (though I thought it was the Washington Times, I haven't looked at either in quite a while). That hardely means that everything is equal. I would also say of the big 3 networks, all 3's major talking heads are left leaning and in Dan Rathers case firmly left.

Well, they don't try to hide it if that's what you mean. There is no such thing as unbiased news, but if you want news untainted by corporate money or greed, leftist is what you usually get.

its funny sometimes to see how tone of voice slips out of your control on a board.
sorry if i appeared annoyed--i wasnt--i thought the whole thing curious, thats all--and i missed the smileyface (i tend to repress them--dont like em)....

ustwo:

when i read the post above, i was reminded of a cool book i found--"the far left" by the reverend billy james hargis, published under the auspices of the john birch society in 1962, which tries to "demonstrate" that the entire media is run by fifth columnists, pinkos, commies, elements of and internationalist conspiracy, all out to destroy a righteous christian american nation. your liberal media hallucination is as old as the american far right.

i think that you should embrace your inner john bircher, ustwo.
acknowledge your sources.
it seems like but a small step.

One thing I do know is that there is a fair amount of evidence that Fox News puts a blatant rightist spin on their news.

See here:
http://www.outfoxed.org/

Secondly, no one has been so upset about CNN "leaning left" that they tracked down past employees and company memos and things of that nature. Thats gotta say something about Fox's news reporting.

And for a laugh:

http://maddox.xmission.com/c.cgi?u=bill_oreilly

First off, I think everyone should go check out "Outfoxed" because it makes the point that all of the liberals are trying to make but haven't watched enough Fox News to accurately represent. Then also consider the survey that was posted above. That is the main problem. Not that this news station or that news station have certain politics. The problem is that people who consume certain outlets for their news have distorted views of reality. I agree that some liberal people are angered that Fox News exists because it has been a switch from the norm. However, I do not believe that makes their opinions totally worthless. Again, you guys need to check out "Outfoxed" to really have an informed debate here and not just bang heads.
http://www.outfoxed.org/

Also, that whole "Fox is popular and, thus, mainstream" argument...I don't know about that. It reminds me of Howard Stern's movie "Private Parts" where the radio guys are arguing about taking Howard off the air and one guy tells the other guy that Howard is listened to the most by people who hate him. I just think "popularity" as validation is misleading.

As yet another example of O'Reilly's lying ways, here is a great point-by-point video rebuttal of him defending FOX News from Outfoxed, while at the same time reinforcing the movie's analysis of him.

http://http.dvlabs.com/carolina/Outf...eilly_lies.mov (14MB)

Rather Biased

Remeber if its on the internet and the other guy can't defend himself, it must be true!

No one here is saying that. I think rational people can look at the evidence, note any fallacies of logic, and then decide for themselves.

I'm actually pretty distraught by anyone who dares to call Fox News "the truth", or anything remotely like it.

An amazing documentary that anyone interested in the subject might want to watch is "outfoxed", which covers a few aspects of Murdoch's reign, etc. This is a definite must-see for the diehard overpatriot morons who promote the network, but alas, I'm sure they'll be the last ones to see it.

Has anyone else seen this film?

EDIT: I missed that Chipmunk had just said this a few posts above :). This post now stands to affirm what he has said, that this should be seen before the debate is furthered.

There is no such thing as a neutral news source anymore. It's all biased in one way or another. Anyone thinking otherwise is merely fooling themselves. One must watch and read several news sources then sorta figure out for yourself where the real truth lies, it's usually somewhere in the middle of all the BS.