Naw, there's no liberal bias in the MSM.. (Look Around Nervously...)
Naw...

from Newsbusters :
The Us magazine cover story is filed under the URL slug "sarah-palin-very-difficult-to-work-with". This particular smear job on Sarah Palin was literally spoon fed to the magazine and bloggers on the left by the Huffington Post that featured a hacked up YouTube version of the interview that was edited to take Governor Palin out of context and make the incident sound worse than it really was.
Submitted by Red_Wing on Wed, 2008-09-03 04:08
-->
- Red_Wing's diary
- Login or register to post comments
Tags:

Comments :
Unbelievable! n/t
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
The Crying Violins
are playing "My Heart Pumps Piss For You."
qui tacet consentire
I'm happy to see your heart's in the right place...?
...but sorry to hear about that problem with the urine and such, sounds painful. Yikes. Might want to see a doctor!
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
In what sense
does US Weekly = MSM?
So you'd have no objection to me posting a clip of O'Reilly as evidence of the MSM right-wing bias? :)
At least they're an actual news organization, so they'd be better evidence of an MSM bias, no?
(On an unrelated note, I've asked you before to follow standard fair use procedure, and not to include complete or mostly-complete posts that are not your own. Please take only a small percentage of other people's work and link back to the original. I've edited to reflect this.)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
So what is your point?
Are you actually, with a straight face, inferring there is no liberal
media
bias
in America
? Are you?
After what we've seen over the last couple days?
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
The right
harps about the liberal bias in MSM and the left harps about conservative bias in MSM. Isn't it expected if they (MSM) are trying to be objective?
Sic semper tyrannis
Yep.
The media have one bias: stupidity. They'll run with whatever has legs.
But let's take your links:
1. The MRC is a right-wing organization. Doesn't mean they can't do good research, but to provide an admittedly biased source for evidence of bias elsewhere is a little... hypocritical? (Not of you, but of the MRC itself)
2. The UCLA study is interesting, and I'll have to give it a more thorough read - it's not exactly short.
3. Anecdotal evidence makes for a weak argument, especially in this case. Jon Stewart had a great mash-up of media quotes from the early stages of the Democratic primaries showing how hilariously hypocritical the objections of Republican media figures have been towards this Palin hubbub given the way the Democratic primaries were covered. But you know how that goes: it's only bias when my side is attacked.
4. Ditto. Examples of media bias are good, but they don't show an overall bias unless you've got some kind of methodology showing that these are normal, not incidental. If you've got one example from six cable stations over the course of a week, I want to know what the other thousand stories that were covered are. Weak. The UCLA study at least tries to systematize it.
And what does that have to do with your diary, which posits US Weekly as an example of MSM (it's not) and then suggests it's evidence of MSM bias (it's not). Evidence of US Weekly bias, maybe.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Media matters
makes the case that the study itself is biased: Former fellows at conservative think tanks issued flawed UCLA-led study on media's "liberal bias"
Sic semper tyrannis
This is all silly, MM is a left media anaysis group, LOL! n/t
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Really?
It's ironic that according to the UCLA media bias research methodology quoting from a conservative paper puts you on the right of the political spectrum. It would seem thus that MM, which quotes the right overwhelmingly is a right wing group.
Sic semper tyrannis
Come on - It's funded by George Soros!
You know good old Georgie, of MoveOn.org fame. Here is some info for ya;
Convinced?
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
You're missing the point
Media Matters is clearly left-wing, but the UCLA study would characterize it as right-wing based on it's methodology. The point being, perhaps the UCLA study isn't using particularly useful methodology, and therefor any conclusions that come from that study are suspect.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I stated above that we were on a silly path as...
...in this case all the information is one or the other! LOL
But would you not agree the MSM in America is clearly in the tank for Obama and leans hard left?
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
No
I'd agree that the MSM is biased towards promoting stories that it thinks will sell. Left or right is irrelevant.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Aw SL?
Come on, be honest.
Won't report Edwards scandal, that would sell.
But blitz how many houses JM's wife has?
Ignores Obama's skeletons completely, wouldn't print the Rev Wright story.
But are all over Palin.
MSM coverage of Obama eclipses that of McCain?
Unless it's bad news... ;-)
It goes on and on!
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Eye of the beholder, RW
Eye of the beholder...
Sic semper tyrannis
SO FUNNY you won't admit it! Says a lot... n/t
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
What is funny
is that every one of your argument is parried and yet you conclude that somehow your opponent has to admit defeat. It's sort of like someone who says "checkmate" no matter what the situation on the chessboard.
Sic semper tyrannis
There is so much evience abounding...
...that it is undeniable.
But how to prove it when everything is held in contempt?
You know and I know the media is liberal, and has been disgustingly so in the course of this cycle!
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Sure,
you might know that media is liberal - but I don't really know where the truth lies as I can't find convincing, objective data that would prove that it's either way. My perception is, and quite obviously, that that the bias is on the conservative side of the political spectrum, but I don't expect anyone else to share that perception as I don't pretend that my perception is true for anybody else but me.
Sic semper tyrannis
..Ok Woodsman...ok? n/t
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Eh, let's be serious here:
Won't report on Edwards scandal because Edwards is out of office, not running for anything, and nobody cares. Palin's all over the news because she could become a step away from the most powerful position in the country. I think that's a fair distinction between their relative newsworthiness.
Won't report on the Wright issue? Are you joking? You couldn't turn on a television without seeing Wright's speeches replayed endlessly, with a queue of pundits arguing about what kind of effect it would have on Obama's run. Eye of the beholder there.
You want further proof? I know you hate MM, but check out these screen captures (here
and here
) of two recent MSNBC polls. Naturally the Democrats have been foaming at the mouth, but there's nary a mention of it on Republican sites. Because we all see offense when it's directed at us.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Listen...
...This is the problem when 5 people pile on and try to defend the initial person engaged. One person says, "OH! They'll print anything that sells", The others have 5 different points?
I can't argue with 5 people at once. I tried, I can't.
I believe I can be very persuasive One on One, even convincing, but this is unfair and not productive.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Weak.
This is a blog, not a live debate. You have time to regroup, think out responses, research answers. Either you have a response or you don't.
If you've already answered a point in discussion with someone else, you can direct me to that.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Weak...hardly. But your response above sure is...
The press doesn't report on Edwards
because he is a liberal and a democrat. He was the democrat wonderboy, and now no one will mention his name, it's a big story.
Palin should be all over the news, but not being vilified
.
The only reason she was - that's right the liberal media acting like vicious savages disparately trying to make her go away - for fear she will hurt the new golden boy.
They didn't report on the Wright issue for almost a year
till it was broken in the MSM, OK.
MM is a liberal Soros funded left media machine
.
MSNBC is a joke now days
, a parody of it's former self!
As far as I'm concerned your position on this proves your unwillingness to be real.So I couldn't care less what you believe Pico, really.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Nightline must not be part
Nightline must not be part of MSM

LA Times apparently isn't part of MSM either
MSM "fails" to report about Edwards
US Weekly and Hanna Rosin, who has written at least one piece for several liberal MSM papers, must be representative of all non-McCain voters according to the Weekly Standard.
Sinced you linked a A Sweetness & Light article, I found the following:
Sweetness & Light has a used a narrow definition of "lie"
And then S&L turns around uses a broader definition of "lie" and calls other reporters liars
for using the same narrow definition of "lie" that S&L refused to acknowledge as a base for calling Palin's jet/eBay comment a lie.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
As I mentioned...
The Rev Wright story was around for a long time, and it wasn't until they could no longer ignore it when they addressed it.
Interestingly, they spent as much time proving it to be OK, like us white people just don't understand (racism and anti American rhetoric) the black church, as they did reporting it?
Same as Michelle's comments.
Rezco.
Ayers.
etc, etc, etc?
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Pathetic response.
I was hoping for better, and the fact that you capped it off with an unnecessary ad hominem speaks even less of you. I have an "unwillingness to be real", even though I've criticized Media Matters and supported the study you linked in this very essay
? I see. So tell me why should I bother trying to process these debates if you're not going to give my responses the same level of consideration? I don't take to condescending dismissal well, especially when it's both poorly thought-out and unnecessary.
But whatever. If you'd rather play these masturbatory games of mutual insult, I'll leave you to it.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
This is the issue I find here...
There are dozens of articles that support the few I posted.
But every time a point is raised in any way espousing a questionable left - it becomes this trivial tit for tat postings of internet rhetoric.
I can not fathom how one can not see the MSM being left leaning? It is such an evident phenomenon to argue it only gives credence to the preposterous idea that it does not.
I could say the sky is blue, and post a link that supports the obvious conclusion. Then one could endlessly post scientific data and links that tear it apart stating it is actually black, but light is being...etc etc
The Edwards story has been reported NOW, as has the Wright story, but begrudgingly so, after excruciatingly belabored calls for it by the people who broke them.
That is what I meant, we can argue many things here, but to belabor the minutia of the obvious is redundant and does not lead to advancing the course of conversation.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Thank you for giving me
an actual response this time.
Here's the problem: you're coming into this forum with a set of rock-solid preconceptions, and asking people with a different set of rock-solid preconceptions to accept yours uncritically, or to recognize that theirs are wrong. If you step back from that, you'll see why it's a non-starter.
If you're a liberal, you see a media that asked zero questions in the lead-up to the Iraq War, that barely touches John McCain with anything but kid gloves, that accepts criticisms about "patriotism" or "values" uncritically, that would rather spend hours looking for a missing white girl than covering any real issue with any real depth. If you're a conservative you obviously think that's hogwash. So that's the starting point.
And that's why we post links to challenge each others' viewing habits. The UCLA study you posted had me thinking. In return, all my links are dismissed as minutiae with no bearing on the "obvious" situation.
This is your choice. We can have this conversation or not, but if you want to have it, you have to be willing to take other people's comments with some level of seriousness. Doesn't mean you have to accept them or agree with them, but dismissing them outright means that we have nothing here but a shouting match.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Fair enough...
Do you think what political affiliation one has affects their vote, and hence their outlook
?
Most recently US Weekly did a hit piece on Sarah Palin, watch this
.
Pico, it just goes on forever.
As for your assertion JM gets free ride, ya, sure, how many houses did he end up having? That's the only kind of bogus crap the liberal MSM comes up with. The reason he is not getting heat is because he ia a veteran of Congress of 2 6 years, there is nothing to "get" him on?
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Well, political affiliation affects vote
and outlook, but not necessarily performance. That's the essence of professionalism: a good journalist is a good journalist regardless of personal outlook. I'll believe statistics about pieces (which is what the UCLA study tried to show), but I consider the affiliation of journalists to be arbitrary.
And incidentally, if you won't let me discuss articles I see on Media Matters, then I won't let you post articles by Media Research. I see no reason why an admittedly left-leaning watchdog group is off-limits, but an admittedly right-leaning watchdog group is considered a legitimate source.
Do you know the context of the McCain comment, by the way? Shortly before the stop in Las Cruces, McCain had joked that he'd define rich as having a $5 million income - a weak joke, but whatever. This, plus the fact that the housing bubble is one of the most contentious political issues of the year, is what prompted the question in the first place. Since painting Obama as out-of-touch on values important to Middle America is fair game (and I wouldn't expect otherwise), asking McCain whether he is the right person to understand the housing issue seems more than fair game to me.
Doesn't mean he can't handle the housing bubble, or that his policies are any better/worse, but since a great deal of our political debates concern how out-of-touch a candidate might be with the general public, this lands pretty squarely in that territory.
Also: US Weekly is not MSM.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Its a national magazine? What is your definition of MSM? n/t
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Pico, just check this out...
This is how I see it working...Please watch as they mention MM specifically...
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
There's something almost perverse
in your refusal to read anything from MM, or dkos, or MSNBC, or whatever - and then you want me to watch Glenn Beck? :)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I'll read them. Just don't get obnoxious with the D/Kos ;-)
Here's a couple things I thought you might find germane to the conversation.
There's this
,and this
.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Things aren't always as obious as they appear.
At the start you used a US Weekly magazine article, that was seemingly given as an example of MSM.
Pico thought US Weekly wasn't MSM
Argument shifts to:
SL: MSM, [individual, outlets vary] reports what they think will make a profit.
Others are seemingly saying the sky is mostly "Dodger blue."
With Edwards, the story has been reported on by MSM, his story isn't quite as interesting as others, such as Ted Haggard, or that diaper wearing astronaut.
The sky is black right now with some moonlight and starlight.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Huh? n/t
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
I'm a little unconvinced by MM's analysis.
I was going to post that link, too, but on further reading, they're being a little disingenuous about their criticisms.
Here's an example, from MM:
Here's the quote from the original study:
Take it or leave it, but it seems a little dishonest to me that MM criticized the study's qualification of RAND on the surface, without saying that the study knew it was anomalous and explained why the anomaly appears.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
It's a valid point.
Though I can't see how this invalidates all of the factual observations pointing to the flaws in the research and the political bias of the authors themselves.
Here's another interesting critique:
"Liberal Bias," Noch Einmal
Sic semper tyrannis
One of the best reasons I've seen to vote for McCain! n/t
obama vote

by burghnews
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
I don't like the Brand you're selling.
I refuse to be swayed either way by someone that spends hours on end on their looks, in hopes of making it appear like they just woke up.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Here's the headline, "Bush: 8,000 US troops to leave Iraq"
...That is unless you are the re-packager and disseminater of left wing propaganda!
Then it reads like this
;
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
Correction
8,000 troops to leave Iraq and go to Afghanistan. That's not much of an improvement.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
We'll be in Afghanistan either way... n/t
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
FUNNY! Liberals, I'll tell ya? Better stick to the blogs...
...they can't talk back! LOL!!!!
Here two liberal radio talk show hosts think they have a slam dunk Sarah Palin smear interview with former Democrat POTUS candidate Mike Gravel.
Poor liberals - LMFAO!!!
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
The latest...
From the MRC;
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman
NY Times CW puzzle - All Obama All the time....
Not once.
"A society that puts equality before freedom will have neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both." ~ Milton Friedman