Changes

===== Bias cloaked as objectivity =====

===== Bias cloaked as objectivity =====

Liberal bias in objective news goes back much further than most people realize, and most journalists would want anybody to know.  [[Walter Lippmann]], who is considered by many to be the Father of Modern Journalism,<ref>{{cite journal |last=Schudson |first=Michael |authorlink=Michael Schudson |date=2008 |title=The "Lippmann-Dewey Debate" and the Invention of Walter Lippmann as an Anti-Democrat 1985-1996 |journal=International Journal of Communication |volume=2 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Carey |first=James W. |authorlink=James W. Carey |date=March 1987 |title=The Press and the Public Discourse |journal=The Center Magazine |volume=20 }}</ref> was on the front lines of the development of so called "objective journalism" around the 1920's.<ref name=meaning>[https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/bias-objectivity/lost-meaning-objectivity/ The lost meaning of 'objectivity'], American Press Institute</ref>

Liberal bias in objective news goes back much further than most people realize, and most journalists would want anybody to know.  [[Walter Lippmann]], who is considered by many to be the Father of Modern Journalism,<ref>{{cite journal |last=Schudson |first=Michael |authorlink=Michael Schudson |date=2008 |title=The "Lippmann-Dewey Debate" and the Invention of Walter Lippmann as an Anti-Democrat 1985-1996 |journal=International Journal of Communication |volume=2 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Carey |first=James W. |authorlink=James W. Carey |date=March 1987 |title=The Press and the Public Discourse |journal=The Center Magazine |volume=20 }}</ref> was on the front lines of the development of so-called "objective journalism" around the 1920s.<ref name=meaning>[https://www.americanpressinstitute.org/journalism-essentials/bias-objectivity/lost-meaning-objectivity/ The lost meaning of 'objectivity'], American Press Institute</ref>

Lippmann wrote that you could use selective keywords<ref name=keywords>Walter Lippmann, ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=eLobn4WwbLUC&pg=PA355]'', p. 355</ref> in order to demonize one group of people or to praise other groups, solely based on the journalist's prerogative.  He concluded that after the journalist set the tone of who was to be praised and who was to be castigated, the role of editorials was to reinforce the message.<ref name=keywords />

Lippmann wrote that you could use selective keywords<ref name=keywords>Walter Lippmann, ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=eLobn4WwbLUC&pg=PA355]'', p. 355</ref> in order to demonize one group of people or to praise other groups, solely based on the journalist's prerogative.  He concluded that after the journalist set the tone of who was to be praised and who was to be castigated, the role of editorials was to reinforce the message.<ref name=keywords />

===Los Angeles Times, The===   

===Los Angeles Times, The===   

      

      

The mainstream media including the LA Times had been guilty of being silent regarding the [[John Edwards]] affair that the National Enquirer had broke in October 2007. The Enquirer followed up with a publication in December 2007. Then in July 2008, the Enquirer had confronted Edwards at the Beverly Hilton hotel after he spent the entire day with his mistress. After Edwards admitted the affair on Friday August 8, the [[mainstream media]] finally reported the [[scandal]], including the [[LA Times]]. In an article titled "Mainstream media finally pounce on Edwards' affair", the LA Times declared that they had been pursuing the story prior to Friday.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-na-edwardsmedia9-2008aug09,0,7463269.story Mainstream media finally pounce on Edwards' affair] LA Times, August 9, 2008</ref> But they gave no excuse for hiding this from the American public. They have showed their true liberal bias by not reporting the story earlier. Then making an attempt to further fool the public by saying they were pursuing the story, when in fact 10 months had lapsed. Plus, nowhere in the article does it mention the Edwards is a Democrat. To the credit of the LA Times, they do mention that Democratic party strategists say Edwards needs to address the story, at the very bottom of the article. Protection of fellow [[liberal]] [[Democrats]] by the LA Times is more important than being a honest news organization.

The mainstream media including the LA Times had been guilty of being silent regarding the [[John Edwards]] affair that the National Enquirer had broke in October 2007. The Enquirer followed up with a publication in December 2007. Then in July 2008, the Enquirer had confronted Edwards at the Beverly Hilton hotel after he spent the entire day with his mistress. After Edwards admitted the affair on Friday August 8, the [[mainstream media]] finally reported the [[scandal]], including the [[LA Times]]. In an article titled "Mainstream media finally pounce on Edwards' affair", the LA Times declared that they had been pursuing the story prior to Friday.<ref>[http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/tv/la-na-edwardsmedia9-2008aug09,0,7463269.story Mainstream media finally pounce on Edwards' affair] LA Times, August 9, 2008</ref> But they gave no excuse for hiding this from the American public. They have showed their true liberal bias by not reporting the story earlier. Then making an attempt to further fool the public by saying they were pursuing the story, when in fact 10 months had lapsed. Plus, nowhere in the article does it mention the Edwards is a Democrat. To the credit of the LA Times, they do mention that Democratic party strategists say Edwards needs to address the story, at the very bottom of the article. Protection of fellow [[liberal]] [[Democrats]] by the LA Times is more important than being an honest news organization.

===MSNBC===

===MSNBC===

Peter D. Feaver of the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' noted on the sixth anniversary of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks]] that [[MoveOn.org]] ran a full-page advertisement in the ''[[New York Times]]'' accusing General [[David Petraeus]] of activities befitting a traitor. The advertisement alleges, without [[evidence]], that Petraeus would not  give an honest, professional assessment of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]].  Feaver noted, "The MoveOn.org ad is vicious ... a deliberate attack on the senior Army commander, in a major daily newspaper, with the intention of destroying as much of his [[credibility]] as possible...part of an elaborate effort to undermine public support for the [[Iraq war]], and was foreshadowed by an unnamed [[Democratic]] senator who told a reporter, "No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV . . . The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us." The effort is funded by powerful [[special interest]]s, and has all the trappings of a major political campaign.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/11/moveons_mccarthy_moment/ MoveOn's McCarthy moment], By Peter D. Feaver, ''Boston Globe'', September 11, 2007.</ref> Within a day it was discovered the ''New York Times'' gave MoveOn.org a “hefty discount” for its ad questioning Petraeus’ integrity. According to the director of public relations for the ''New York Times'', “the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692.” A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed that the [[liberal activist group]] paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.<ref>[http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/news/nationalnews/times_gives_lefties_a_hefty_di.htm Time Gives Lefties a Hefty Discount for "Betray us" Ad], Charles Hurt, ''New York Post'', September 13, 2007.</ref>

Peter D. Feaver of the ''[[Boston Globe]]'' noted on the sixth anniversary of the [[September 11, 2001 attacks|September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks]] that [[MoveOn.org]] ran a full-page advertisement in the ''[[New York Times]]'' accusing General [[David Petraeus]] of activities befitting a traitor. The advertisement alleges, without [[evidence]], that Petraeus would not  give an honest, professional assessment of [[Operation Iraqi Freedom]].  Feaver noted, "The MoveOn.org ad is vicious ... a deliberate attack on the senior Army commander, in a major daily newspaper, with the intention of destroying as much of his [[credibility]] as possible...part of an elaborate effort to undermine public support for the [[Iraq war]], and was foreshadowed by an unnamed [[Democratic]] senator who told a reporter, "No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV . . . The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us." The effort is funded by powerful [[special interest]]s, and has all the trappings of a major political campaign.<ref>[http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/09/11/moveons_mccarthy_moment/ MoveOn's McCarthy moment], By Peter D. Feaver, ''Boston Globe'', September 11, 2007.</ref> Within a day it was discovered the ''New York Times'' gave MoveOn.org a “hefty discount” for its ad questioning Petraeus’ integrity. According to the director of public relations for the ''New York Times'', “the open rate for an ad of that size and type is $181,692.” A spokesman for MoveOn.org confirmed that the [[liberal activist group]] paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.<ref>[http://www.nypost.com/seven/09132007/news/nationalnews/times_gives_lefties_a_hefty_di.htm Time Gives Lefties a Hefty Discount for "Betray us" Ad], Charles Hurt, ''New York Post'', September 13, 2007.</ref>

In July, 2008, the [[New York Times]] rejected an opinion piece written by [[John McCain]], which was responding to earlier piece written by [[Barack Obama]].<ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/21/mccain-campaign-says-new-york-times-blocked-op-ed-response-to-obama/</ref>  This came after the [[New York Times]] had previously published at least seven op-ed pieces by [[McCain]] since 1996, and endorsed him in the 2008 Republican Presidential primaries.  The reason the [[New York Times]] cited for the July 2008 rejection was that they were asking the McCain campaign to provide a more substantive piece which would contrast his positions with the details of the Obama piece on a point-by-point basis.<ref>http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/the-times-and-the-mccain-op-ed/</ref>

In July, 2008, the New York Times rejected an opinion piece written by [[John McCain]], which was responding to earlier piece written by [[Barack Obama]].<ref>http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/21/mccain-campaign-says-new-york-times-blocked-op-ed-response-to-obama/</ref>  This came after the New York Times had previously published at least seven op-ed pieces by [[McCain]] since 1996, and endorsed him in the 2008 Republican Presidential primaries.  The reason the New York Times cited for the July 2008 rejection was that they were asking the McCain campaign to provide a more substantive piece which would contrast his positions with the details of the Obama piece on a point-by-point basis.<ref>http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/07/21/the-times-and-the-mccain-op-ed/</ref>

===Newsweek Magazine===

===Newsweek Magazine===

In November 2008, Mark Halperin of Time and ABC News criticized the media coverage of the 2008 presidential race, stating, "It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war." "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."<ref>[http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/halperin-decrie.html Political Punch, November 24, 2008 8:06 AM]</ref>

In November 2008, Mark Halperin of Time and ABC News criticized the media coverage of the 2008 presidential race, stating, "It's the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war." "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."<ref>[http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/11/halperin-decrie.html Political Punch, November 24, 2008 8:06 AM]</ref>

Newsweek editor Evan Thomas is seen by some to confirm the lack of objectivity and tendency to give undue exaltation they see the main stream media often displaying toward the new leader of the United states. Referring to his perception of the President after his recent speeches overseas, Thomas stated,  

Newsweek editor Evan Thomas is seen by some to confirm the lack of objectivity and tendency to give undue exaltation they see the main stream media often displaying toward the new leader of the United States. Referring to his perception of the President after his recent speeches overseas, Thomas stated,  

"I mean, in a way Obama's standing above the country, above the world. He's sort of God."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37B_nOdRTAA]<ref>june 5, 2009, MSNBC interview with Chris Matthews</ref>

"I mean, in a way Obama's standing above the country, above the world. He's sort of God."[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37B_nOdRTAA]<ref>june 5, 2009, MSNBC interview with Chris Matthews</ref>

One the glossary of book, ''World History: Continuity and Change'', the entry on the Ten Commandments skeptically describes them as "Moral laws Moses '''claimed''' to have received from the Hebrew G-d Y-hweh on Mount Sinai," while the very same glossary states the [[Qu'ran]] is a "Holy Book of Islam containing revelations received by Muhammad from G-d.” <ref>http://www.israelnationalnews.com/SendMail.aspx?print=print&type=0&item=127797</ref>

One the glossary of book, ''World History: Continuity and Change'', the entry on the Ten Commandments skeptically describes them as "Moral laws Moses '''claimed''' to have received from the Hebrew G-d Y-hweh on Mount Sinai," while the very same glossary states the [[Qu'ran]] is a "Holy Book of Islam containing revelations received by Muhammad from G-d.” <ref>http://www.israelnationalnews.com/SendMail.aspx?print=print&type=0&item=127797</ref>

One textbook publisher, ''Teachers Curriculum Institute'', has agreed to rewrite its unit on the Middle East after being challenged, and consulting many scholars. The San Fransisco-based Jewish Community Relations Council found that the textbooks were so filled with inaccuracies and biased that they should not be used.<ref>San Francisco Jewish Community Publications, Friday, February 13, 2004</ref>

One textbook publisher, ''Teachers Curriculum Institute'', has agreed to rewrite its unit on the Middle East after being challenged, and consulting many scholars. The San Francisco-based Jewish Community Relations Council found that the textbooks were so filled with inaccuracies and biased that they should not be used.<ref>San Francisco Jewish Community Publications, Friday, February 13, 2004</ref>

Professor, Larry Schweikart notes that most textbooks tend to come from New York, Boston, Washington and Philadelphia, all liberal bastions. As concerns American history, Schweikart sees the "Reagan test" as a consistent indicator of whether a book is politically slanted. The majority of books he has examined credit former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev with ending the Cold War, while marginalizing Reagan.<ref>[http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/11/president-reagan-gets-the-shaft-in-textbooks/print/ Fox News, March 11, 2010]</ref>

Professor, Larry Schweikart notes that most textbooks tend to come from New York, Boston, Washington and Philadelphia, all liberal bastions. As concerns American history, Schweikart sees the "Reagan test" as a consistent indicator of whether a book is politically slanted. The majority of books he has examined credit former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev with ending the Cold War, while marginalizing Reagan.<ref>[http://liveshots.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/03/11/president-reagan-gets-the-shaft-in-textbooks/print/ Fox News, March 11, 2010]</ref>

==Left-wing denial of Liberal bias==

==Left-wing denial of Liberal bias==

[[New York Times]] publisher [[Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr.]] has denied that the New York Times has a liberal viewpoint and has stated the New York Times has an "urban" viewpoint.<ref name="nytimes.com">http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=</ref>  However, in the summer of 2004, the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, published a piece on the Times' liberal bias and cited the example of their coverage of [[Homosexuality and Marriage|homosexual marriage]].<ref name="nytimes.com"/><ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/facts/2007/facts2007914.asp</ref>  Although the New York Times has a particularly heavy bias when it comes to the [[homosexuality]] issue, the New York Times is not unusual in regards to the media having a liberal bias when it comes to the subject of homosexuality; see [[Homosexuality in the Media]]. [[John Stossel]] is an author, consumer reporter, and a co-anchor for the [[ABC|ABC News]] show [[20/20]]. [[Cybercast News Service]] states the following regarding regarding the influence of the New York Times and [[Washington Post]]:

New York Times publisher [[Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr.]] has denied that the New York Times has a liberal viewpoint and has stated the New York Times has an "urban" viewpoint.<ref name="nytimes.com">http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=</ref>  However, in the summer of 2004, the newspaper's then public editor (ombudsman), Daniel Okrent, published a piece on the Times' liberal bias and cited the example of their coverage of [[Homosexuality and Marriage|homosexual marriage]].<ref name="nytimes.com"/><ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/facts/2007/facts2007914.asp</ref>  Although the New York Times has a particularly heavy bias when it comes to the [[homosexuality]] issue, the New York Times is not unusual in regards to the media having a liberal bias when it comes to the subject of homosexuality; see [[Homosexuality in the Media]]. [[John Stossel]] is an author, consumer reporter, and a co-anchor for the [[ABC|ABC News]] show [[20/20]]. [[Cybercast News Service]] states the following regarding regarding the influence of the New York Times and [[Washington Post]]:

{{cquote|While the newspapers reach only a fraction of people compared to the television networks, he said radio and television producers rely heavily on their contents.

{{cquote|While the newspapers reach only a fraction of people compared to the television networks, he said radio and television producers rely heavily on their contents.

== Liberal American entertainment industry, bestiality  and other sexual immorality ==

== Liberal American entertainment industry, bestiality  and other sexual immorality ==

[[File:NBC Tower.jpg|thumbnail|200px|[[LifeSiteNews]] reported:"In 46 hours of programming, [[NBC]] contained only one reference to marital sex, but 11 references to non-marital sex and one reference to [[adultery]] were made. References to incest, pedophilia, partner swapping, prostitution, threesomes, transsexuals/transvestites, [[bestiality]], and necrophilia combined outnumbered references to sex in marriage on NBC by a ratio of 27 to 1.<ref name="lifesitenews.com">[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/aug/08080602 Study Finds TV Treats Marital Sex as Burdensome, Adultery as Positive]</ref> See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]] ]]

[[File:NBC Tower.jpg|thumbnail|200px|[[LifeSiteNews]] reported:"In 46 hours of programming, NBC contained only one reference to marital sex, but 11 references to non-marital sex and one reference to [[adultery]] were made. References to incest, pedophilia, partner swapping, prostitution, threesomes, transsexuals/transvestites, [[bestiality]], and necrophilia combined outnumbered references to sex in marriage on NBC by a ratio of 27 to 1.<ref name="lifesitenews.com">[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/aug/08080602 Study Finds TV Treats Marital Sex as Burdensome, Adultery as Positive]</ref> See also: [[Liberalism and bestiality]] ]]

''See also:'' [[Liberalism and bestiality]] and [[Liberal American entertainment industry and bestiality]]

''See also:'' [[Liberalism and bestiality]] and [[Liberal American entertainment industry and bestiality]]