The lie of media liberal bias....continued. Just had to comment on some references to the liberal bias in another thread. Though this may have been true in the past, the government's relaxation of the FCC regarding the rules concerning media monopolies has changed the political landscape. The recent Rush Limbaugh fiasco (used by conservatives as proof) does not prove the posit that the media is liberally biased. Let's start with the easy proof. 1. Can anyone name even one liberal political radio or TV commentator with the personal, nationally syndicated show as well known as Rush', Bob Grant, Oliver North etc.? 2. I can count the liberal newspaper columnists on one hand but there is a plethora of conservative ones, Bandow, Bennett, Chapmand, Evans, Hart, Reese, Roberts, Buchanan, Buckley, Kemp, Lambro, Pinkerton, Sowell, North, McLaughlin....to name a few. 3. Reed Irvine and his associates in the right wing media organization "Accuracy in the Media" appear in over 100 newspapers and 200 radio stations. The fundamentalist evangelical media such as Pat Robertson, Falwell, Dobson is a 2 billion a year industry controlling 10 percent of all radio outlets and 14 perrcent of the nation's television stations. Right wing Rupert Murdoch's expanding empire includes the FOX, TV Guide, New 4. York Post and oh, let's not forget the Wall Street Journal. 5. Also, Clear Channel, the largest owner of radio stations in the country (US) has sponsered pro-Bush war rallies in Atlanta, Cleveland etc. It was congressional relaxation of the media monopoly rules that allowed it to increase its ownership from 43 up to its current 1,233 stations. Here is a snip from a link: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalmedia.htm Quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether owners interfere explicitly or implicitly in the newsroom, evidence of it continually surfaces. Here are just a few examples: During the debate on health care reform, the New York Times ran stories persistently in favor of managed competition, a program which would have been profitable to major health care corporations. Other proposals for reform, like the Canadian single-payer program, were criticized or ignored. Reason: four members of the Times board of directors are also directors of major insurance companies, and two are directors of pharmaceutical companies. (15) Victor Neufeld, the executive producer of ABC's top-rated news show 20/20, repeatedly rejected several promising stories on nuclear power hazards. Reason: His wife is a prominent spokesman for the nuclear and chemical industries. (16) Walter Annenberg, owner of the Philadelphia Inquirer, used his paper to attack a candidate who opposed action that would have benefited the stockholders of the Pennsylvania Railroad. Reason: he was the single largest stockholder. (17) Rupert Murdoch's Post endorsed President Carter in the crucial New York Presidential primary, contributing to his victory. Reason: two days earlier, Murdoch had lunch with Carter, convincing him to lean on the Export-Import Bank of the United States to give him a taxpayer-subsidized loan of $290 million. The bank had previously rejected the loan. (18) A four-month study by FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting) analyzed how the New York Times and Washington Post covered NAFTA. Of the experts quoted in their articles, pro-NAFTA outnumbered anti-NAFTA sources by three to one. Not a single labor union representative was quoted. Reason: these newspapers' boards of directors are drawn from big business. (19) Journalist Elizabeth Whelan asked ten major women's magazines to run a series of articles on the rise of smoking-related diseases in women; all ten magazines refused. Reason: "I frequently wrote on health topics for women's magazines," says Whelan, "and have been told repeatedly by editors to stay away from the subject of tobacco." (20) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accuracy in Media claims the the news media are biased toward liberal politics. Fairness & Accuracy in Media claims the the news media are biased toward conservative politics. Supporters of these views see one group as right and the other as wrong. Yes, AIM and FAIR each point out coverage that appears to bolster their various claims. The media will neglect or overplay a story depending on wether it sells. As for the media having liberal prejudicial leanings...see number above. Let's not forget that the most underplayed story was the one linking the events of Sept 11th to Saddam. The Los Angeles times and Chicago Tribune plastered it on page one (the lack of any proof of the link) while the supposed liberal New York Times buried it on page A22 with only a 300 word mention. The New York Post didn't even run the story. Since 2/3 Americans believed Iraq was directly responsible for the terroristic attacks, either the American public is monumentally stupid or Bush (rather his much more intelligent staff members) had orchestrated a brilliant campaign through the "supposed liberal media." This view that the media is biased is somewhat elitist... as if a select few posess the insight of truth. The plain fact is , the media doesn't care about truth.