P.S. Note that on this thread there is some actual conversation taking place, with a few of your senseless posts and Illy's non-pithy insensible posts scattered about.

It was just the opposite so far as FauxNews goes...there the talent was fired for objecting to their superiors making up facts.

Hank, there's actual reporting of facts, and we agree that FauxNews does little to none of that.

There's opinion based on facts, and FauxNews does very little of that, too.

FauxNews' main activity is editorial opinion based on non-facts, schit that they make up.

The only worthy use of that type of entertainment is to further incite the idiots who believe it is actual reporting of facts...evidence of which can be seen all over this here website as dudes parrot, virtually word for word, the editorials based on made up "facts" from FauxNews, Limbaugh, Beck, and the rest.

Spin on facts is what every person in the world does...making up facts, then spinning that garbage is what FauxNews does.

Fish on...

Todd

The MSM will punish their own and another example of that would be Dan Rather with his fabricated Bush report.

Being as objective as you are, you'd more than likely agree that there's a bias to the left in journalism and the media in general. That's something we have to deal with I guess.

thanks for noticing. I really didn't believe you were a Cretin until
you took a stance with the rabble rousers.
This bullchit gets tiresome, bring on the trial.
What a waste. Odd.

The "bias to the left" is completely made up, too...and every study of the phenomena says so...not surprisingly, you hear about it on FauxNews, from Rush, and from Beck, too...not the studies, mind you, but the myth.

Fish on...

Todd

They must have missed out on a few studies..


In a survey conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1997, 61% of reporters stated that they were members of or shared the beliefs of the Democratic Party. Only 15% say their beliefs were best represented by the Republican Party. This leaves 24% undecided or Independent.

A 2002 study by Jim A. Kuypers of Dartmouth College, Press Bias and Politics, investigated the issue of media bias. In this study of 116 mainstream US papers, including The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle, Kuypers stated that the mainstream press in America tends to favor liberal viewpoints. They argued that reporters who they thought were expressing moderate or conservative points of view were often labeled as holding a minority point of view. Kuypers said he found liberal bias in reporting a variety of issues including race, welfare reform, environmental protection, and gun control.

A joint study by the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University and the Project for Excellence in Journalism found that viewers believe that liberal media bias can be found in television news by networks such as CNN. These findings concerning a perception of liberal bias in television news – particularly at CNN – are also reported by other sources.

Self-described as "the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly, a study by political scientists Tim Groseclose of UCLA and Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri at Columbia. The study's stated purpose was to document the range of bias among news outlets. The research concluded that of the major 20 news outlets studied "18 scored left of the average U.S. voter, with CBS Evening News, The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal, while only the Fox News "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter." The study also identified the Drudge Report as "left of center". In this study, "left" and "liberal" are treated as synonyms, and are identified with think tanks cited by Congressional members of the Democratic Party, while "right" is identified with think tanks cited by Congressional members of the Republican Party. The report also states that the news media show a fair degree of centrism, since all but one of the outlets studied are, from an ideological point of view, between the average Democrat and average Republican in Congress. This may be because organizations perceived to be extremist may have difficulty getting access to news material such as interviews.

You copied/pasted from Wikipedia, but failed to add in all the parts about the criticism of those studies, the poor protocol they used, and then the many others that found exactly the opposite...though, to be fair, I wouldn't have expected anything other than that

Fish on...

Todd

Are you telling me you don't see it yourself? You need to step back from your partisan views and look at it honestly and objectively. There's a definite slant to the left and that's reflected by the vast majority of reporters who state their party affiliation as Democratic. I won't bother to post those figures because you know it's true. Even looking at campaign contributions by journalists to candidates of both parties shows an overwhelming support for Democrats. Do you honestly think that has no effect on how they write an article or a newscast?

Just for once, be completely objective in your assessment of bias in the news.

Dood...don't lecture me about "objectivity"...for real.

Journalists do tend to be educated, and educated people do tend to vote Democratic...that's a given.

That, though, doesn't make their reporting biased...watch FauxNews and you'll see right wing talking head after right wing talking head after right wing talking head, with the only "balance" being the Tea Party dingbats that are even farther to the right of them...not to mention sounding just like Ari Fleischer for eight years of Bush.

Watch CNN, for instance, and even if the reporter tends to vote Democratic, you'll see her paneling with people from both sides...and you'll see them and her just as likely to bag on Obama if they don't like what he's saying or doing, whether they are lefties or not.

Same goes with network news, the Sunday news shows, and on NPR.

Fish on...

Todd

If you insist on bringing Fox into the conversation, why isn't you don't bring MSNBC along along for the ride as well? Are you going to even try to tell me they're objective and only reporting the news in a straightforward manner?

Here's the rest of the article you cited, Hank...in case someone may want to read more than just the couple of paragraphs you cherry picked

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_bias_in_the_United_States

Self-described as "the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly,[22] a study by political scientists Tim Groseclose of UCLA and Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri at Columbia. The study's stated purpose was to document the range of bias among news outlets.[23] The research concluded that of the major 20 news outlets studied "18 scored left of the average U.S. voter, with CBS Evening News, The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal, while only the Fox News "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter." The study also identified the Drudge Report as "left of center". In this study, "left" and "liberal" are treated as synonyms, and are identified with think tanks cited by Congressional members of the Democratic Party, while "right" is identified with think tanks cited by Congressional members of the Republican Party. The report also states that the news media show a fair degree of centrism, since all but one of the outlets studied are, from an ideological point of view, between the average Democrat and average Republican in Congress. This may be because organizations perceived to be extremist may have difficulty getting access to news material such as interviews.

The study met with criticism from many outlets, including the Wall Street Journal,[24] and Media Matters.[25] Criticisms included:
Different lengths of time studied per media (CBS News was studied for 12 years while the Wall Street Journal was studied for four months).
Lack of context in quoting sources (sources quoted were automatically assumed to be supporting the article)
Lack of balance in sources (Liberal sources such as the NAACP didn't have conservative or counter sources that could add balance)
Flawed political positions of sources (Sources such as the NRA and RAND corporation were considered "liberal" while sources such as the American Civil Liberties Union were "conservative".)

Mark Liberman, a professor of Computer Science and the Director of Linguistic Data Consortium at the University of Pennsylvania, has argued that there were a number of statistical flaws in this study.[26][27] According to Professor Liberman, the model chosen leads to "very implausible psychological claims, for which no evidence is presented." He argued that "many if not most of the complaints directed against G&M (Groseclose and Milyo) are motivated in part by ideological disagreement – just as much of the praise for their work is motivated by ideological agreement. It would be nice if there were a less politically fraught body of data on which such modeling exercises could be explored."[26]

*************

The NRA is "liberal"? Hell, they're always jabbering away on the news, and every time they are on it gets counted as "liberal bias"? Same with the RAND Corporation? The giant defense contractor/think tank? Really?

Sounds like your "study" might have a "stupid bias".

More?

********************

Conservative bias in the media occurs when conservative ideas have undue influence on the coverage or selection of news stories.

Possible causes of conservative bias include:
Media Concentration: A handful of corporate conglomerates (e.g., (Disney, CBS Corporation, News Corporation, TimeWarner, and General Electric) own the majority of mass media outlets in the United States.[28][Need quotation to verify] Such a uniformity of ownership means that stories which are critical of these corporations are in some cases underplayed in the media.[29][Need quotation to verify]
Capitalist Model: In the United States the media are operated for profit, and are usually funded by advertising. Stories critical of advertisers or their interests may in some cases be underplayed, while stories favorable to advertisers may be given more coverage.[30][Need quotation to verify]
Conservative Media Organizations: Certain conservative media outlets such as NewsMax and WorldNetDaily describe themselves as news organizations, but are generally seen as promoting a conservative agenda.[31][32][33]





Studies done by FAIR argue that the majority of media citations come from conservative and centrist sources.
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has argued that accusations of liberal media bias are part of a conservative strategy, noting an article in the August 20, 1992 Washington Post, in which Republican party chair Rich Bond compared journalists to referees in a sporting match. "If you watch any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will cut you a little slack next time."[34] A 1998 study from FAIR found that journalists are "mostly centrist in their political orientation";[35] 30% considered themselves to the left on social issues compared to 9% on the right, while 11% considered themselves to the left on economic issues compared to 19% on the right. The report argued that since journalists considered themselves to be centrists, "perhaps this is why an earlier survey found that they tended to vote for Bill Clinton in large numbers." FAIR uses this study to support the claim that media bias is propagated down from the management, and that individual journalists are relatively neutral in their work.

Scholars Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman argue that the logic in some of the conservative arguments are flawed. They argue that comparing the media product to the voting record of the journalists is akin to thinking auto-factory workers design the cars they help produce. Indeed, they argue that the media owners and news makers are the ones with an agenda, and they argue that this agenda is subordinated to corporate interests that they view as often leaning right.[36]

A report "Examining the 'Liberal Media' Claim: Journalists' Views on Politics, Economic Policy and Media Coverage" by David Croteau, from 1998, calls into question the assumption that journalists' views are to the left of center in America. The findings were that journalists were "mostly centrist in their political orientation" and more conservative than the general public on economic issues (with a minority being more progressive than the general public on social issues).[37]

Rupert Murdoch, the CEO of News Corporation (the parent of Fox News), self-identifies as a libertarian. Rupert Murdoch has exerted a strong influence over Fox News.[38][39]

In 2008 George W. Bush's press secretary Scott McClellan published a book in which he confessed to regularly and routinely, but unknowingly, passing on lies to the media, following the instructions of his superiors, lies that the media reported as facts. He characterizes the press as, by and large, honest, and intent on telling the truth, but reports that "the national press corps was probably too deferential to the White House", especially on the subject of the war in Iraq.[40]

E. J. Dionne, Jr., Op Ed columnist for The Washington Post, writes: "For all the talk of a media love affair with Obama, there is a deep and largely unconscious conservative bias in the media's discussion of policy. The range of acceptable opinion runs from the moderate left to the far right and cuts off more vigorous progressive perspectives."[41]

[edit] Cited Allegations

[edit] Fox News

See also: Fox News Channel controversies

According to former Fox News producer Charlie Reina, unlike the AP, CBS, or ABC, Fox News's editorial policy is set from the top down in the form of a daily memo: "frequently, Reina says, it also contains hints, suggestions and directives on how to slant the day's news – invariably, he says, in a way that's consistent with the politics and desires of the Bush administration." [42] Fox News responded by denouncing Reina as a "disgruntled employee" with "an ax to grind."[42][42]

According to the December 18, 2010 issue of The Atlantic, "One alleged news network fed its audience a diet of lies, while contributing financially to the party that benefited from those lies. Those who work for Fox News are not working for a journalistic enterprise. They are working for the communications department of a political party." [43]

[edit] Kenneth Tomlinson and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting

Kenneth Tomlinson, while chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, commissioned a $10,000 government study into Bill Moyers' PBS program, NOW.[44] The results of the study indicated that there was no particular bias on PBS. Mr. Tomlinson chose to reject the results of the study, subsequently reducing time and funding for NOW with Bill Moyers, which many including Tomlinson regarded as a "left-wing" program, and then expanded a show hosted by Fox News correspondent Tucker Carlson. Some board members stated that his actions were politically motivated.[45] Himself a frequent target of claims of bias (in this case, conservative bias), Tomlinson resigned from the CPB board on November 4, 2005. Regarding the claims of a left-wing bias, Bill Moyers asserted in a Broadcast & Cable interview that "If reporting on what's happening to ordinary people thrown overboard by circumstances beyond their control and betrayed by Washington officials is liberalism, I stand convicted."[46]

[edit] Authors

Several authors have written books on conservative bias in the media, including:
Eric Alterman wrote What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News, (2003) in which he disputes the belief in liberal media bias, and suggests that over-correcting for this belief resulted in conservative media bias.[47]
Al Franken wrote Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, (2003), in which he argues that mainstream media organizations have neither a liberal nor a conservative political bias, but there exists a right-wing media that seeks to promote conservative ideology rather than report the news.[48]
Jim Hightower in There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos (1997; ISBN 0-06-092949-9) uses humor to deflate claims of liberal bias, and gives examples of how media support corporate interests.
David Brock wrote The Republican Noise Machine (2004).
Amy Goodman wrote Standing up to the Madness: Ordinary Heroes in Extraordinary Times.
Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky wrote Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988, 2002).
Robert W. McChesney and John Nichols (journalist) wrote Our Media, Not Theirs: The Democratic Struggle Against Corporate Media (2002).
Michael Parenti wrote Inventing Reality: the Politics of News Media (1993).

*******************
Just a little more to "fair and balance" your little piece of the article

Fish on...

Todd

You didn't answer my question about MSNBC. In case you "forgot", here it is again:

If you insist on bringing Fox into the conversation, why isn't you don't bring MSNBC along along for the ride as well? Are you going to even try to tell me they're objective and only reporting the news in a straightforward manner?

I didn't mention MSNBC at all...you did...in the usual "yeah, but look what__________does!"...fill in the blank with whatever you can to make it look like your team's failings are the same as everyone else's.

MSNBC is full of spin...but not full of people in the "newsroom" literally making up facts, like FauxNews does...including FauxNews constantly reporting on the made up facts that "the mainstream media" is the enemy (when they report on the same stories, only using facts), and that there is a "liberal media bias"...

Fish on...

Todd

MSNBC gets their made-up "facts" straight from the head office and it's not spin, it's lies.

Who told you that...Bill O'Reilly?

Again, it doesn't matter...I didn't even bring up MSNBC, you did in order to say that they're just like FauxNews, which they are most decidely not...and having nothing to do with your two paragraphs copied from a long article on media bias.

Fish on...

Todd

Dooooooooood, I brought up MSNBC because every other word out of your mouth is Fox this and Fox that. You can't even partially admit, other than say it's "spin", that MSNBC and the people on it are lying through their teeth. They're constantly being caught at it and you're too hardheaded to admit it.

Tell ya what; I'll stop with the MSNBC bullschitters and you do the same with Fox. OK?

The problem is that I know that MSNBC is full of spin, and don't watch it to get my "news" or "facts"...and far less people do than watch Fox for that exact same thing...news and facts.

Hear about the "left wing media bias"? You probably heard about it from one of a very few sources, all of which are pathological liars...look at all the studies, including the *one* you cited (which has been discredited, by the way)...but that doesn't stop Fox, or right wingers in general, of just accepting it as the truth.

Why would they accept it blindly? Do they believe it when they see it on Fox? Do they want it to be true so badly that they won't bother checking to see if it's real? Do they hear it enough on all the right wing tv and radio they listen to that it's just been hammered into their brains, a la Bush "jettisoning the propoganda" (by repeating lies so many times that they get ingrained)?

There is no liberal media bias...period.

Any objective look at it has said so, and often finds, in fact, that when you combine the right wing talking heads (with no balance) to the left wing talking heads (who most often offer up differing and opposing positions), there is actually a right wing media bias.

Don't like it?

Sorry.

Call Hannity and complain...I'm sure he'll be happy to tell you something you want to hear, even if it's not true.

Fish on...

Todd

Look, maybe Zimmerman did follow Trayvon to ensure he wasn't breaking into a house or something BUT he lost him as the 911 tape explains. So where did Trayvon go? To eat his skittles, or make a devious plan to lose Zimmerman and beat the crap out of him when he wasn't looking resulting in a broken nose and bloodied head.

Hey Hank,

I agree that MSM is biased toward the left. The explanation is pretty simple. Along with Todd's mention that journalists tend to be educated and educated folks in general lean left, the other important consideration is that the center of the Republican party used to be about where the conservative side of the Dems are these days. The Dems have moved slightly more left, and the Rs have moved way further to the right, ergo the complete lack of environmental values, significant reduction of social values, and the tendency to rah rah the "have mores" to the exclusion of middle class values. In order for MSM to be balanced, they'd have to adopt some loony planks to the platform, as it were.

Sg

I don't think there's a lack of bias for the left in the media and I think it's pretty plain to see that. They distort their reporting to create their own version of "truth", as in the NBC 9-1-1 tapes and they outright lie, as in the Dan Rather case. Just two examples out of many.

I see it in their writing style and I see it in the news they don't even bother to report. Editors at the Chronicle don't include some news items if they don't like them. I've seen them appear days later if it's been on national news and they're basically forced to put them in.

You seem to think conservative thought originated in '96 when Fox was created and nobody ever uttered conservative ideas until then. You think if it weren't for Fox, nobody could parrot what they say and any discourse from the right would be silenced. That's nonsense.

There are thinking people that don't agree with you and you need to get over that. Just because you think it's right doesn't necessarily mean anybody who doesn't agree with you is a moron.

In fact, I think half of what you say is incredibly stupid and I can't figure out how you could possibly be so obtuse.