Overt Liberal Media Bias: Journalistic Fraud

**Informal Logic** · Mar23-05, 02:15 PM

It seems that all the statistics, and debate over semantics, are really a moot point. If the population is conservative, which the article shows, these people will tune into conservative news sources (FOX, Christian radio, etc.) regardless of how many liberal journalists/agencies there are. So maybe the question really should be "Is the country becoming more conservative?" and I think if this was a poll, the response would be overwhelmingly YES. So get over it all ready...

**russ_watters** · Mar23-05, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by Informal Logic

It seems that all the statistics, and debate over semantics, are really a moot point. If the population is conservative, which the article shows, these people will tune into conservative news sources (FOX, Christian radio, etc.) regardless of how many liberal journalists/agencies there are. So maybe the question really should be "Is the country becoming more conservative?" and I think if this was a poll, the response would be overwhelmingly YES. So get over it all ready...

Trouble is, if the average joe can't spot a bias when he sees it, how will he know to switch to the bias he wants? With the advent of Fox, its less of an issue today than 5 years ago, but 5 years ago, the average joe might assume they were getting unbiased news when, in fact, they were being gently nuged to the left. That's the danger of a hdiden bias.

Beyond that, Fox isn't just the only news outlet that leans right, they are also the most sensational (and therefore, imo, about the lowest quality). So I (for example) don't watch Fox, even though their ideas are more in line with mine than the other stations.

**SOS2008** · Mar23-05, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by russ_watters

I guess I don't see your point then: journalists are more liberal than average for the general population and there are more liberal than conservative journalists. So what? When you say "Really?" it sounds like you want to contradict something I said.

"Really" was a sincere wonderment at the assertion that statistics always kill a thread. And then I was making the point of comparison between journalists versus the public (in reply to what you posted), which first you deny, and now you admit (that the article makes comparisons between journalists and the general population) a twisting and circular pattern...

Originally Posted by russ_watters

Yeah, I know - your comment was a paraphrase of the article and was factually wrong.

This is verbatim from the article:

While most of the journalists, like many Americans, describe themselves as "moderate," a far higher number are "liberal" than in the general population.

Originally Posted by russ_watters

The article did not say that the general public is getting more conservative - it didn't survey the general public at all and says explicitly that the media is getting more liberal.

This also was verbatim from the article

The survey also revealed what some are sure to label a "values" gap. According to Pew, about 60% of the general public believes it is necessary to believe in God to be a truly moral person. ...About half the general public believes homosexuality should be accepted by society.

What is this saying? It's saying a more conservative population is a factor in these results.

Originally Posted by russ_watters

No, it isn't. If the Swifties made false claims, then they committed fraud, not the journalists who reported on their claims. A pseudonym.

So these journalists don't need to check the facts before reporting lies unless it involves documents per Dan Rather?

Originally Posted by russ_watters

The country is moving to the right, but that is irrelevant to this thread.

I completely disagree with this, because anyone with basic economic understanding will say as I have that services (news) will accommodate the market (the growing conservative population) to obtain higher profit (ratings).

Originally Posted by russ_watters

C'mon waste (and SOS) I know you know what the word "fraud" means - I'm not going to play the definition game. Gannon, et al sold their opinions, they did not fabricate facts..

It doesn't seem to matter what is pointed out, such as using a fraudulent name (i.e. fraud), you persist in arguing the point and then accusing others of playing definition games.

**russ_watters** · Mar23-05, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by SOS2008

"Really" was a sincere wonderment at the assertion that statistics always kill a thread.

Fair enough.

And then I was making the point of comparison between journalists versus the public (in reply to what you posted), which first you deny, and now you admit (that the article makes comparisons between journalists and the general population) a twisting and circular pattern...

Very carefully this time:

-The article says the number of liberal journalists is higher than the number of liberals in the general population.
-The article does not say (as you have asserted) that the general population is getting more conservative. It may be true (imo, it probably is), but it is not discussed in the article, as you asserted.
-The article also does not say (as you assert) that the media is only getting more liberal when compared with the general population. Your statement:

In other words, maybe the media isn't becoming more liberal but rather the general public is becoming more conservative.

Sure, you did say "maybe", but that doesn't make the assertion any less wrong. The article, quite simply, doesn't say that and what the article does say directly contradicts it.

This also was verbatim from the article.....
What is this saying? It's saying a more conservative population is a factor in these results.

More conservative than what? More conservative than liberal or more conservative than it was 10 years ago? The article does give statistics that say its more conservative than liberal, but it does not give statistics that it is more conservative than it was 10 years ago (or any other timeframe).

It also does not say that the main poll results reflect the "value gap" (as you are asserting) but rather he "value gap" is a reflection of the poll results.

So these journalists don't need to check the facts before reporting lies unless it involves documents per Dan Rather?

What's confusing about this? There is no fact to check in a direct quote! Compare:

-Dan Rather: This memo from Bush's CO says....
-SBV: We didn't go into Cambodia on Christmas Eve.
-Random reporter: The SBV say that they didn't go into Cambodia on Xmas eve.

In the first "quote", Dan rather is making an assertion about what someone else said. Its up to him to make sure that is, in fact, what the CO said.

In the second "quote", the SBV is claiming a fact about the boat's movements that contradict what Kerry said (lets set aside that that fact has been verified....). Its up to him to be accurate about that fact of the boat's movements.

In the third "quote", a random reporter is paraphrasing the words of the SBV. It is up to him to make sure he accurately paraphrases the SBV. But:

-If the SBV lied, is fraud by the SBV.
-If the SBV lied and the random reporter knew it at the time, that would be fraud by the reporter to repeat a known lie.
-If the SBV lied and the reporter found out later and didn't come clean (see: Dan Rather again), it would be fraud by the reporter.
-If the reporter was unsure of the accuracy, it would be inethical to say otherwise, but not fraud.

So what really happened in that case: there was controversy over the statements and that controversy was investigated. At no time(that I saw) did any reporter ever vouch for the accuracy of the claims by the SBV. All of the initial reports went something like: 'The SBV say ...this..., but the Kerry campagn says ...that...' Both sides presented, no necessary endorsement of either claim. As doubt came over either version, doubt was discussed in the news.

Now, of course, the irony is that doubt or not, the SBV stayed in the news. Kerry's attempt to use his service to his advantage backfired, and his attempts to smother the fire just fanned the flames.

I completely disagree with this, because anyone with basic economic understanding will say as I have that services (news) will accommodate the market (the growing conservative population) to obtain higher profit (ratings).

That's true. Fox's emergence bears that out. So how is that relevant to this thread?

It doesn't seem to matter what is pointed out, such as using a fraudulent name (i.e. fraud), you persist in arguing the point and then accusing others of playing definition games.

It doesn't seem to matter what is pointed out, such as using a fraudulent name (i.e. fraud), you persist in arguing the point and then accusing others of playing definition games.

Since when is using a pseudonym fraud? Journalists and actors do it all the time - mostly because their real names are boring or difficult to say. I would assume he used it because "Gannon" rolls off the tongue better than "Guckert". If you are claiming he was intentionally trying to conceal his identity, that'd be one thing, but you aren't claiming that, are you? (and if you are, prove it)

**wasteofo2** · Mar23-05, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by russ_watters

C'mon waste (and SOS) I know you know what the word "fraud" means - I'm not going to play the definition game. Gannon, et al sold their opinions, they did not fabricate facts. And the thread about that died a quiet death after it was pointed out that that's not something unique to Bush's administration.

Excuse me?

Fraud - DECEIT, TRICKERY; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK

You think writing articles and doing radio shows talking about how great the Bush administration is while being on the payroll of the Bush administration and not telling anyone ISN'T deceiving or misrepresenting yourself?

It's really scary how you just brush off covert state propaganda. And could you please show me an instance from the Clinton Administration where he paid journalists of one sort or another to pimp his programs?

**Informal Logic** · Mar23-05, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by russ_watters

With the advent of Fox, its less of an issue today than 5 years ago.

I see your point, but we aren't talking about five years ago. The thread is about whether conservatism is becoming more prevalent now.

As for post #20, I don't think statistics will kill this thread, but rather the digression of this debate.

**russ_watters** · Mar23-05, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by wasteofo2

Excuse me?

Fraud - DECEIT, TRICKERY; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK

You think writing articles and doing radio shows talking about how great the Bush administration is while being on the payroll of the Bush administration and not telling anyone ISN'T deceiving or misrepresenting yourself?

Its certainly inethical, but not everything inethical is fraud - these are different issues.

It's really scary how you just brush off covert state propaganda.

I'm not brushing it off: We've already discussed it in another thread. I agree that its wrong. Its just not relevant to this thread.

And could you please show me an instance from the Clinton Administration where he paid journalists of one sort or another to pimp his programs?

Certainly:

Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance....

Federal agencies have been commissioning video news releases since at least the first Clinton administration. An increasing number of state agencies are producing television news reports, too; the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department alone has produced some 500 video news releases since 1993.

Once again, Clinton was the originator of the PR Presidency.

CORRECTION from earlier: SOS said Gannon was on Bush's (or the administration's) payroll. I didn't know enough about it and just assumed that to be true. It isn't. Gannon was not on Bush's payroll.

The first (of how many, I'm not sure) of the ones actually on Bush's (actually, it was the Education Dept's) payroll was Armstrong Williams.

**wasteofo2** · Mar23-05, 10:08 PM

Originally Posted by russ_watters

Its certainly inethical, but not everything inethical is fraud - these are different issues.

It's not just unethical, it is FRAUD! Jesus man, Fraud is "an act of deceiving or misrepresenting", it doesn't get any simpler than that.

**wasteofo2** · Mar23-05, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by russ_watters

Once again, Clinton was the originator of the PR Presidency.

Ok, except I asked for an instance in which Clinton bought off the press, you showed no evidence of anything like that. I wonder if you could show me any sort of specific information about these press releases Clinton made that were supposed to look like news reports, I'd be interested to see if they're anywhere as bad as Bush's...

**SOS2008** · Mar23-05, 11:36 PM

Originally Posted by russ_watters

SOS said Gannon was on Bush's (or the administration's) payroll. I didn't know enough about it and just assumed that to be true. It isn't. Gannon was not on Bush's payroll.

My apologies for any confusion. In saying:

Jason Blair doesn't compare to the presstitution of Gannon, or other pundits on the Bush payroll to pitch his agenda.

I said "or" other pundits...

**russ_watters** · Mar24-05, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by wasteofo2

It's not just unethical, it is FRAUD! Jesus man, Fraud is "an act of deceiving or misrepresenting", it doesn't get any simpler than that.

And Armstrong Williams misrepresented what, precisely? He certainly didn't misrepresent his opionion. He didn't misrepresent the facts of Social Security. That's what journalistic fraud is: lying about the story.

He may not have come out and said he was being paid by Bush, but he didn't deny it either. Did he ever feign objectivity (his column is called "The Right Side"

)? No, Armstrong Williams got paid for saying things he probably would have said anyway.

**russ_watters** · Mar24-05, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by wasteofo2

Ok, except I asked for an instance in which Clinton bought off the press, you showed no evidence of anything like that. I wonder if you could show me any sort of specific information about these press releases Clinton made that were supposed to look like news reports, I'd be interested to see if they're anywhere as bad as Bush's...

I guess its fair to say that those are separate actions (paying a commentator to hawk your issues and making pseudo-news spots). I found the later, I'll look for the former...

**loseyourname** · Mar24-05, 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by russ_watters

I guess its fair to say that those are separate actions (paying a commentator to hawk your issues and making pseudo-news spots). I found the later, I'll look for the former...

This was dealt with just a couple of threads back:

Local affiliates are spared the expense of digging up original material. Public relations firms secure government contracts worth millions of dollars. The major networks, which help distribute the releases, collect fees from the government agencies that produce segments and the affiliates that show them. The administration, meanwhile, gets out an unfiltered message, delivered in the guise of traditional reporting.

The practice, which also occurred in the Clinton administration, is continuing despite President Bush's recent call for a clearer demarcation between journalism and government publicity efforts.

Full Piece in NYT

This was about the third time somebody had posted a reference to Bush doing this, somehow without noticing that the same article mentioned that Clinton did the same thing. Of course, they concluded with an anti-Republican rant. It just goes to show that if media like the NYT is indeed biased, they don't even need to misreport the facts. All they need to do is proclaim something anti-Bush in the headline and then quietly mention that Clinton did the same thing somewhere on the second page of the article. Without fail, most people will only read the headline.

**SOS2008** · Mar25-05, 10:43 AM

The unfortunate difference is extent, and who has been fraudulent in a more appalling way, and who has faced the music for it. Bill Clinton faced impeachment procedures for telling a lie about private matters of his life (extra marital affair). Bush has lied in so many ways and levels--the war in Iraq alone and the resulting loss of lives, completely surpasses other presidents.

**kat** · Mar25-05, 10:48 AM

The column by Mathew Miller in the Post Standard (Jan. 22,2000) was distressing to say the least. In it he attempts to say that Drug Czar General Barry McCaffrey, head of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) was right in trying to influence the media to change the content of our TV shows because he feels the message is a good one. "Drug czar?" Journalists use the term because no one can
remember the alphabet-soup in the phrase "Director of the ONDCP." But this
week after revelations that Gen. Barry McCaffrey has been paying the
networks to inject his reefer-madness worldview into primetime TV shows, the
abbreviation is obvious: it's the Office of National Drug Censorship and
Propaganda.

We now know that those scary overdose scenes on "ER" were bought and paid
for out of McCaffrey's billion-dollar drug-war-chest. What kinds of
drug-scare themes and Drug War endorsements can we expect on TV shows in
weeks to come?

How about a Martin Luther King special that shows racial profiling and high
African-American incarceration rates in a favorable light?

Perhaps a 4th-of-July TV movie endorsing no-knock drug raids, clarifying the
logic of seizing property from legally innocent citizens, and featuring a
cameo appearance by Georgia Congressman Bob Barr to show how free/fair
elections can be cancelled for the good of all citizens.

Maybe we'll see a light-hearted "LA Law" episode on those wacky cops in the
Rampart precinct of Los Angeles. Student study guides, supplied by the DEA,
will include "Knowing when extortion should be ignored" and "Corruption?
What the heck. It's for a good cause."

For the edification of Californians and those in other states that passed
those pesky medical marijuana bills that McCaffrey hates so much, CBS will
feature the authoritative legal documentary "States-rights: Old idea, bad
idea."

And for his grand finale, to be aired nationwide on Veterans' Day, Gen.
McCaffrey can rig a heroic script for a TV mini-series depicting a
full-scale military invasion of Colombia. The "TV Guide" program synopsis:
"Watch piles of coca leaf blazing in the tropical sun while peasants scurry
into the jungle to plant corn and beans instead."

According to confidential sources, the Clinton administration, having
defended McCaffrey's payola program, is planning to use his novel approach
to aid enforcement of other laws, as well. Their priorities are
predictable. For programs to air between April 1 and April 15th,
broadcasters will be paid hefty sums by the IRS to insert subliminal
messages into prime-time shows: "I WANT TO PAY MY TAXES. I WANT TO PAY MY
TAXES."

An anonymous Clinton aide projects wide applications of McCaffrey's approach
in government. "An ounce of brainwashing is worth a pound of enforcement,"
he said. American law and politics may never be the same. Thanks, Barry!

McCaffrey's ostensible "anti-drug" messages are also pro-Drug-War messages
supporting a burgeoning federal drug-enforcement bureaucracy (at $18 billion
it's 36 times the size of the inflation-adjusted 1970 drug budget).
Irrational fear of drugs leads to an irrational embracing of a Drug War
which, in its totality, is morally questionable at best, and morally
reprehensible in many respects. U.S. media should spend as much time
describing the drug prohibition problem as they do the drug addiction
problem. They are equally serious.

ABC-TV has already pulled out of their arrangement with McCaffrey saying it was not comfortable with his demanding to review shows before they aired. In his Drug War zeal, McCaffrey has betrayed democracy, which thrives on the free flow of information and opinion. Government-hired speech defeats the First Amendment as effectively as direct censorship. In a free society, the government must follow, not shape, the will of the people. McCaffrey should resign.

McCaffrey Should Resign

**Informal Logic** · Mar25-05, 04:48 PM

Originally Posted by loseyourname

The practice, which also occurred in the Clinton administration, is continuing despite President Bush's recent call for a clearer demarcation between journalism and government publicity efforts.[/list]

So there have been incidents of media manipulation, and lies from presidents back to who knows when, Watergate or what have you. And Bush's call for an end to all this is an even bigger lie.

As far as the "Credibility Gap" goes, Bush takes the blue ribbon--not just domestically, but worldwide as never before in history. As for the media, if anything, it is just down-right whimpy here in the States. I was reading an old thread, now I can't remember the title, but it was about how different the media in the UK is toward Blair (and Bush), and showed that the American media has been very lax, especially with regard to Bush. So when will Bush be tagged on all the lies he has told and is still telling?