Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News The lie of media liberal bias continued.

  1. Nov 18, 2003 #1


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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:

    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.
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2003
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 18, 2003 #2
    5) Can anyone show me a 'liberal' mainstream media sourse that does not prominantly feature a conservative commentator for balance? All the right wing has is Alan Colmes, and he is a *expletive deleted*.(Rhymes with 'witch')
  4. Nov 18, 2003 #3
    Another fine post by adrenaline.

    The "liberal media" myth serves the main stream broadcasters and publishers well because they are niether liberal nor conservative. They are corporate. A truly liberal media would be socially oriented. You'd see less "Wall Street Week" and more "this week in union organising" for example. That simply wouldn't promote a consumer culture.
  5. Nov 18, 2003 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    HAVOC, you are surely right about the media being corporate. I used to live in the Chicago area, and the big paper there is the Chicago Tribune. The Tribune company also owns papers, radio stations and TV stations all across the country and is a big investor in AOL.

    Every quarter the business section of the paper would publish a listing of the top 100 Chicago area corporations. And every quarter the Trib company would be there, around number 14 or 15. The media are big business, and the attitudes they display are those of big businessmen, tycoons.

    Reporters have a saying: "Freedom of the press is great, if you can afford a press".
  6. Nov 19, 2003 #5
    Some media have a right-wing bias, and it is growing. You know why? Because average Joe American is conservative and doesn't want to listen to veiws counter to his own.
    Then again I can name some liberals: Colmes, Olberman, Franken, Cronkite, Turner. And this is off the top of my head, so that's why I don't name many and I'm not even sure of all of them.
  7. Nov 19, 2003 #6


    User Avatar

    Lol, the only one I could think of was Howard Stern! I think he beats rush.....no?
  8. Nov 19, 2003 #7
    That's funny, because it isn't true. Most people Identify with moderate or liberal positions. For all teh noise and bluster, the right-wing media isn't that big. It is just very very loud.

    I also like the way that your list of 'liberals' include a ex-writer of SNL and one of the most famous and well respected TV anchors of all time. This is nothing like the machine of Republican propaganda.
  9. Nov 20, 2003 #8


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Howard Stern is a republican, kat.
  10. Nov 20, 2003 #9
    Yes, Ted Turner I was unsure of, keep in mind that I don't know every one's history, I go by their most recent and obvious positions. I know, not exactly acturate...
    Zero, if the right-wing media isn't big, but is just loud and stupid as you suggest, then why are you so upset that it exists. On the one hand you make it sound like Bush, as part of a conspiracy with the oil moguls, Fox, and MSNBC, are tring to take over the world. But then you turn around and say that it is just an illusion, that they are in fact weak and small?
    BTW Russ, I know you're not his babysitter, I just lack wit (the comical kind, Zero), and enjoy yours.
  11. Nov 20, 2003 #10


    User Avatar

    OOPS! but..jeez...does he fit Zero's MO?! How can it be! :wink:
  12. Nov 20, 2003 #11
    The problem is, the right wing media is loud enough to force the rest of the media into reporting lousy stories as though they were true. Just look at the 90s. 90% of the negative reporting about Clinton was spin and manufactured lies, but you heard it on all the media outlets, not just the redical right wing media. Whitewater, for instance, was a non-scandal, as were most of the women who came forward with vaious claims. All reported, because no one wanted to be 'scooped' by Fox.

    There IS media bias, don't get me wrong...it just isn't liberal. The bias is money and ratings. If the media were biased towards liberals, you would hear nightly reports about Bush's complete failures for the environment, the economy, etc. You don't, though, do you? The Iraq stories are spun, not for liberal bias, but for drama and ratings. Neither the per-war excitement, nor the post-war malaise are represented properly in the mass media. The stories are weighted for maximum dramatic impact. Iraq was never a threat, but the media had to play it that way. And, of course, if there is actually anything positive going on in Iraq(I'm sure there is, somewhere, on a political level anyways) that isn't going to be as exciting a story as another bombing, you know?
  13. Nov 20, 2003 #12
    Something else I just thought of(not for the first time), is that an Organization such as Faux News doesn't exist in a vacuum. Although viewership might be lower than they claim, it doesn't mean there is no influence. There are a bunch of books out by the Fox Falsifiers team...Sean Hannity, Bill O'Lielly*, Ann Coulter, ect. Plus, Fox News is an arm of a gigantic media empire...no telling what sorts of influences could go on there.
  14. Nov 21, 2003 #13
    You are right about the ratings and money bias! However, someone like O'Reilly really doesn't strike me as being a puppet that just says whatever the execs say to say. I hate Ann Coulter, she won't answer questions straight when they're posed by talk show hosts who like her! Let alone anyone else.
    As to 90% of the reporting on Clinton being bad, why do you think that is? Could it be that it is because he was the worst president ever? Because he rented out rooms in the White House? Because he sold military secrets to the Chinese for campaign money? Because he's had repeated affairs and even lied straight to 250 million people's faces?
  15. Nov 21, 2003 #14
    That's funny, boss...you repeat the unconfirmed rumors, thereby showing that you bought into the media bias against Clinton. Why don't you talk about Whitewater, Travelgate, or how Clinton fathered an interracial child...so long as we are leaving the path of reality and headed into Republican Fantasyland? And then you'll tell me that he trashed teh White House when he left and stole all the silverware?

    "The worst president ever" is a charge that smacks of media bias...considering that Clinton was actually pretty successful.
  16. Nov 22, 2003 #15
    He was successful because he was charming and many stupid women liked him. I didn't mention Whitewater, Travelgate, and interracial children because I haven't heard of that and it sound like BS to me anyway. One needs only one fact to convict him of being pure evil: he lied to 250 million people's faces. This is not something to be argued, I remember it clearly, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." And yet we proved he did.
    If he has no qualms with cheating on his wife many times, and lying straight to the public, he is evil. In fact, I believe adultery should be punishable by jail time because of the massive emotional damage done to the spouse.
  17. Nov 22, 2003 #16
    Woah! An american president looked the nation square in the TV camera and lied? I'm shocked!

    Well, OK, I'm not all that shocked.
    Johnson lied. (the gulf of tonkin incident)
    Nixon lied. (I am not a crook.)
    Reagan lied. (Iran/contra)
    Daddy Bush lied like a rug. (The one that comes to mind is when he held up a big bag of crack and told the nation that the drug problem was so bad that crack was being sold in the park accross the street from the whitehouse. The thing is, the DEA wasn't able to actually bust a drug deal in the park. They had to go to down town D.C to find a dealer. When they found a dealer that could get the quantity they wanted, the guy had no idea where Laffeyette park was and had to be given directions.)
    Clinton lied. (I did not have sex with that woman.}
    Bush jr. lies. (WMD's, iminent threat, mission accomplished.)

    Q: How do you know a politician is lieing?
    A: His lips are moving.
  18. Nov 22, 2003 #17
    What I'm trying to figure out is; how does Clinton's sex life affect the country more than the political lies of the Bush administration? That's like...crap, that IS how this country works, isn't it? Little lies get you in trouble, big crimes get you a slap on the wrist. Steal a car, get 20 years in jail; steal $117 million for people's retirement funds, pay a fine and go back to your mansion. Be a successful and popular Democratic president, have a $70 million witchhunt conducted against you, that turns up absolutely nothing of any consequence; be a Barely-elected Republican president, and lie to your heart's content, and hear nary a peep from the 'liberal' media, until your lies become so outrageous, so glaringly obvious, that even some fellow Republicans can see through your act.
  19. Nov 22, 2003 #18


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It's a global world

    So who are the liberal and conservative commentators in China? India? France? Russia? Indonesia? Brazil? If you add them all up, how's Big Media doing in terms of liberal/conservative control?

    And, is it any different from what it's been for centuries?

    Is Marx and class warfare alive and well on PF?
  20. Nov 22, 2003 #19
    Re: It's a global world

    Would you care to clarify?
  21. Nov 22, 2003 #20


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: Re: It's a global world

    With pleasure, Zero.

    Liberal and conservative commentators: the initial post referred to an FCC ruling, and named commentators who seem to be prominent in the US. My first question ("So who are the liberal and conservative commentators in China? India? France? Russia? Indonesia? Brazil?") seeks to set the original post in a global context, by asking whether the concept makes sense when applied to other countries, esp those with large populations (I threw France in to deliberately stir things up, seeing as how its principled stand against the US position re Iraq apparently aroused the ire of many prominent Americans).

    The second part ("If you add them all up, how's Big Media doing in terms of liberal/conservative control?") sought to explore whether the media sector is a global oligopoly.

    My second question ("is it any different from what it's been for centuries?") asks whether we are, in the minds of PF readers, at a peculiar point in history, or whether the current state of affairs is typical.

    The last question ("Is Marx and class warfare alive and well on PF?") is after the extent to which the ideas of Karl Marx (esp 'class struggle') are reflected in the discussions we have, or (more broadly) whether even the terms we use owe an intellectual debt to his work.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook