Talk:Liberal bias

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Issues with "Examples of Liberal Style"

I really think far too many of these read like petty snipes that, rather than addressing the particular inclinations of liberal writers, single out politically neutral manifestations of rudeness or poor logic. Perhaps we should institute the following test: only examples which could not conceivably be issued by liberals against conservatives be included.

What do I mean?

Well, one can imagine a liberal saying that conservatives "claim that science supports their position, and ignore any evidence that shows their position to be false". Equally a liberal might suggest a conservative guilty of "attempting to control the rules of evidence used in a debate." About half of this entry constitutes hopelessly woolly thinking. --KeithJoseph 16:44, 8 October 2007 (EDT)

How can you include the section on "emboldening the terrorists" when a majority of Americans clearly believe we should leave, while citing majority opinions in your favor elsewhere? --User:Moderate 13:28, 30 December 2007 (EDT)

What is your source for that majority?
47 percent of Iraqis want US-led forces to leave Iraq immediately and 34 percent want the troops to leave when the security situation improves. [1] --Ed Poor Talk 13:44, 30 December 2007 (EST)
Hmm, "we should leave" involves the question of timing:
  • Three in five Americans (61%) think US forces should get out of Iraq within a year, including 24 percent who favor immediate withdrawal and 37 percent who prefer a one year timetable. Another 32 percent of Americans say the forces should stay until security improves. [2]

Ah, that's the problem. How many think that because the biased medial misrepresent the mission in Iraq. For instance, Bush said it was part of the War on Terror, but the media chose to call it "War in Iraq" instead. Plus they lie about the reason we are there. Lie that Bill Clinton said the same things Bush said about Iraq. They lie that by omission that Iraq was ALL Bush's idea. That's the detriment caused by Liberal Bias. That statistic is based on what a propagandized public thinks.

What is ...?

This article has no definition of what a Liberal Bias is.--Elamdri 22:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd go for some citations, too. And some fries. :D Aziraphale 11:36, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Should the Daily Show and Colbert Report be on here? Neither make any claim to be unbiased, and Jon Stewart has occasionally derided interviewers (most famously on Crossfire, when he wasn't calling them bad for America) for assuming he was a real news outlet and should be expected to act like one. There's a difference between, say, Air America (Liberal Spin, or Liberal Perspective, depending on how nice you are) and NPR (Liberal Bias) Momoka 01:02 15 March 2007

I agree, but if we remove the "Duh..." cases, we're basically left only with unsourced statements. ;) I'm not sure what the point of the article is, anyway. If the things in question have a liberal bias, just say it in the article and supply a source.</opinion> --Sid 3050 08:40, 16 March 2007 (EDT)
I also think this article should include a description of what liberal bias is so that the Conservatives amongst us know what to watch out for.
JC 09:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

uh, momoka....jon stewart is a COMEDIAN! he is not a news caster... and colbert? how can you possibly take him seriously? i watch those shows for LAUGHS...User:Moderate 13:31, 30 December 2007 (EDT)

Unreferenced statements

Cut from intro:

The problem with liberal bias is not just the harm which advocacy of false liberal notions does (which is bad enough), but that Liberals are oblivious to their liberalness. Many of them quite literally and sincerely consider themselves "middle of the road" (see Dan Rather, as mentioned in Goldberg's Bias (book).

user:Hojimachong called this "original research". That stings a bit, because I'm a refugee from Wikipedia where "OR" is a big no-no. So I'll try to dig up some referencs for this. --Ed Poor 01:21, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Okay, I think I've provided 2 citations for the idea that Liberals are oblivious to their liberalness and 1 citation for Dan Rather calling a Liberal newspaper "middle of the road". This still might not be up to encyclopedia quality, because it's only one source: Bernard Goldberg. --Ed Poor 01:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

References that don't support the item they're referencing

Everything in it should have a citation.

And the citation should be a published statement by someone authoritative—a recognized conservative is fine, but not "me and my brother"—that says the thing in question is liberal.

What set me off is that there is a reference for Dan Rather's being considered liberal. But the reference does not say Dan Rather is liberal. It says Dan Rather things the New York Times is middle-of-the-road.

There's a difference between "X says Dan Rather is liberal" and "Dan Rather says Y is middle-of-the-road."

Particularly when no source has been cited for the New York Times' supposed liberal bias. Dpbsmith 08:43, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

According to this site

The nation's major media outlets seem to be owned by corporations which are by no means "liberal", except, perhaps, in the way they have liberally given to | politicians.+-- Crackertalk 11:54, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Conservative bias

Could someone who knows please consider writing the matching Conservative bias article listing Conservative news sources? I am surprised and confused that Conservapedia criticizes Wikipedia by claiming that most Americans are Conservative, but that what I see as America's most reliable news sources are all listed as having a liberal bias. Thankyou. --Scott 11:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Done; I don't understand this either (but remember FOX News, purveyor of truth and justice ;), isn't listed), but the powers that be won't appreciate anyone changing it. Wikinterpreter
"but that what I see as America's most reliable news sources are all listed as having a liberal bias."

Upon what basis do you determine something to be reliable? If they are biased, they can't be reliable. That's the point, that they are biased means they can't be reliable. With all this evidence of bias, it would follow that you need to re-evaluate your standard of what is reliable.

That's just stupid, it is impossible for a media outlet to be conservatively biased. The more right wing the reporting, the more correct it becomes. If you disagree, you yourself might be a pot-smoking hippie Liberal.Toggiba
  • Please! Whilst the majority of Americans are far more traditional/conservative than the news outlets are, and those who work for them, the fact that Fox News, in unbiased studies (and preception) is less "Liberal", it doesn't make Fox News "Conservative", just fair. --~ TK MyTalk 20:36, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
Why does the Conservative American public continue to buy and read such biased newspapers, radio and television stations, instead of putting their money where their mouth is and creating a reputable conservative alternative? Is Rupert Murdoch the only person who saw the majority of Americans as a potential market!? Does he/News Corp have major newspapers too, or just the Fox News television channel? --Scott 23:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
  • News Corp is one of the world's largest media holding companies. Its holdings includes TV Guide, Sky and Direct-TV satellite services, the various Fox networks, Harper-Collins publishing, The London Times, New York Post, dozens of newspapers in Australia and the 20th Century Fox motion picture and television studios. --~ TK MyTalk 00:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Disney owns ABC, Disney gave GWB's 2000 campaign 640K.
Westinghouse owns CBS. (No political contributions cited.)
General Electric owns NBC, GE gave GWB $1.1 million in 2000
TIME-WARNER TBS owns: CNN, HBO, Cinemax, TBS Superstation, Turner Network Television, Turner Classic Movies, Warner Brothers Television, Cartoon Network, Sega Channel, TNT, Comedy Central (50%), E! (49%), Court TV (50%). Largest owner of cable systems in the US with an estimated 13 million subscribers.
TIME-WARNER TBS gave GWB $1.6 million in 2000.
NEWS CORPORATION LTD. / FOX NETWORKS (Rupert Murdoch BoD Phillip Morris):Phillip Morris donated 2.9 million to George W Bush in 2000.
Crackertalk 00:25, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Rob, please don't make me embarass you, with your posting of totally distorted and biased figures. You are in my area of expertise, and most of those coroporations gave exactly the same, if not more, to Democratic Party candidates. You have to go to real stats, not for them! --~ TK MyTalk 00:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
I don't get embarrassed , only enlightened, | here is my source. I defer to your expertise. Thank you for your kind attention to my little additions around here. Crackertalk
Thanks TK. I meant American newspapers, as I know News Corp is the largest newspaper publisher in Australia. The only US newspaper you mentioned is the New York Post. Is that a widely-distributed and well-known newspaper like the NY Times and Washington Post, but Conservative? It's not mentioned in the references for liberal/conservative bias, that I can see. Is there widely perceived to be a liberal/conservative bias in the movie houses such as 20th Century Fox? --Scott 01:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Cracker, the donation amounts to GWB don't tell me much without knowing whether they were given before or after he was the endorsed Republican presidential candidate - did they actually support him against Al Gore/John Kerry, or against other Republicans to ensure they had the right Republican? Note that while I (think I) understand the US political process, I do not have a good grasp on the politics of the various people, along with many of the other non-American readers here, so may well be asking naive questions to someone in the system. Sorry, but if we don't ask, we don't learn. Your source is dated 2003, but was wrong anyway - it says News Corp owns Ansett Airlines. It sold its 50% interest in early 2000, and the airline went bust in 2001. I don't know if it got any media info wrong. --Scott 01:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
I was only providing "who owns what" The campaign contributions just happened to be on the site I cited so I included that as well. I suppose my point was that Westinghouse, GE, News Corp, and Disney are not known in the USA as bastions of liberalism. Crackertalk
  • That site must need some kind of Liberal password, cause it won't resolve for me..... :p --~ TK MyTalk 02:00, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Try it now. Crackertalk
Ouch! --Scott 02:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
GE and Westinghouse probably care more about Defense and electricity contracts and policies than they do about media bias. If they exercise editorial control, that is likely to be the focus. --Scott 02:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes, that would explain NBC hiring Rick Kaplan to run its news.  :p Time-Warner, one should see that Ted Turner is one of the largest stockholders. --~ TK MyTalk 03:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)


Ed Driscoll wrote:

  • Austin Bay asked me to guest host the Pajamas Media "Blog Week In Review" podcast this week, so I interviewed Robin Aitken, the former BBC journalist and on-air personality who left the network and has written a new book, very much in the vein of Bernard Goldberg's books on American media bias, titled Can We Trust The BBC. I tried to aim the questions towards an American perspective on the topic, but then, how could I not? Aitken also discussed in depth the BBC's biases regarding Iraq, Israel, and the Palestinians. Regular readers of this blog won't exactly be shocked where the BBC comes down on these issues, but for those who still hold out a belief that the BBC is entirely objective, its an eye-opener. [3] --Ed Poor 12:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Technically the term "objective" is objective, therefore I wonder if it is differences in culture that can explain any bias by the BBC. Surely the BBC is less geared towards sensationalism then American media and it focuses on the issues that are being discussed rather then simply telling the masses where the majority of their opinion lies. This would be more encouraging of a neutral environment where the individual is left to make their own choices. Britain is considerably less puritian in its customs and culture as well as more liberal. The fact that a liberal bias may exist is less important, though then whether it allows for opposing views to be formed. I am unable to do anything more than simply offer a generalization, however, as issues are exceedingly complex and diverse as are the ways of covering them, but surely the issue is more complex then whether the BBC is biased or not.--Theseus 22:16, 2 July 2007 (EDT)


(Protection log) (diff; hist) . . TK (Talk | contribs) (protected "Liberal bias": Warning of locking soon.... [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

Explain, please... --Sid 3050 20:50, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Just checking to see how many keyholes you're peeping into.  :p --~ TK MyTalk 00:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

It's locked?

Note: This page has been locked so that only registered users can edit it. I am Gulik's complete lack of surprise. But last I checked, I _am_ a registered user. --Gulik2 01:34, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Middle of the Road

" During a phone conversation, Bernard Goldberg asked him, "What do you consider the New York Times? Rather answered, "Middle of the road." "

The article uses this quote to prove that Dan Rather has a liberal bias? That seems rather foolish to me considering that if left is liberal and right is conservative the middle would be no bias at all. Dilbert 02:27, 5 June 2007 (EDT)

Communism for Dummies

Can anyone tell me what this is? The others are all famous, but I haven't heard of this one. It was entered by Hektor back in March, and he was later blocked for questionable edits, so I'd just like to verify we don't have a red herring here. Thanks Learn together 17:03, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

It looks very suspicious. It should be removed because of the circumstances you just described. Bohdan 17:05, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Sigh. There is a whole line of books with the tag ....."For Dummies" explaining things like "Computers for Dummies", "Windows XP for Dummies", etc. Check Barnes and Noble's website. Or --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:31, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
Yes my friend I have a few of those, but in regards to liberal bias if that is what was meant then that wouldn't exactly be a good example. I was just wondering if there was some infamous show or newspaper by that name that I wasn't aware of. Learn together 17:52, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
  • Ahh! Wasn't a valid link anyway! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 17:55, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Media bias

So... since no one can agree whether media etc. are "accused of having liberal bias" or "have well known liberal bias," why don't we follow CP Commandment #2? If it's so obvious, shouldn't it be written somewhere objective? (And no, that page of out-of-context quotes about minor examples of bias can't be a source; at least not the only source). Jazzman831 21:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

huh? Rob Smith 22:58, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
I seem to be rambling and in need of sleep. Let me try again: we are on the cusp of a revert war over the issue of whether the media is "accused" of having a liberal bias, or whether they have a "well known" liberal bias. Why don't we just add some sources instead of reverting? See CP Commandments #2 and #5, as well as the Editing Etiquette ("put your "facts" in neutral terms. For example, Secular geologists believe that the world is 4.5 billion years old is better than The world is 4.5 billion years old"). According to the rules, both versions of the statement in contention are not acceptible in their current form. Jazzman831 23:31, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
ok.. so you mean like, "according to longtime media watcher and analyst so-and-so the MSM is dominated by commie stooges & useful idiots", for example? Rob Smith 23:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
Uh, yeah, as long as it follows the footnote to commandment two: "Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others." Though good luck finding an authoritative source calling the NYTimes "commie stooges & useful idiots" ;-) Jazzman831 23:57, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Great sourcing on the CBS News bias, Rob. I don't think we will see Uncle Walter issuing an apology will we? --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 02:05, 8 August 2007 (EDT)

The United Nations?

I'm not sure if the United Nations fits in here. It's a liberal organization, yes, but it wouldn't seem right to put, say, the ACLU or the Democratic Party in here, as it's not a media organization per se. DanH 21:50, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

A gathering of nations in a forum for discussion originally created to prevent a third world war is inherently liberal? Kazumaru 19:39, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
Actually, yes, if you use a different definition of the word liberal. In international politic theory the spectrum is more often broken into "realist" and "liberal". In a nutshell, a realist believes in the use of power and force to ensure security and enforce policy, and a liberal believes in organizations to ensure security and enforce policy. In these terms, the UN is the definition of a liberal solution :) Jazzman831 20:22, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
You make liberalism sound less like evil than some others here. Kazumaru 20:24, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
In the olden days, Americans could always say, "Let the UN handle it;" thank the Lord for Conservapedia, cause now we can see just exactly what this attitude of letting "UN Peacekeepers handle it" really means: United Nations#UN Sexual Abuse Scandals. Rob Smith 20:42, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
"Just let the Americans handle it" worked well too, until the Abu Ghraib pictures were leaked. Kazumaru 21:22, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes! One should be highly offended at terrorists and criminals being humiliated! Of course that is on the same level as stealing billions from the poor, letting hundreds of thousands starve, and aiding anti-Semites.....of course. Kazumaru, see Deceit. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 21:48, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes indeed. Those sadistic American torture techniques, making Mighty Islamic Warriors of God wear women's panties. What will the neighbors think? Rob Smith 22:46, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
  • I appreciate you only disagreeing after you banned me, TK, however... I'm not referring to the panties-on-head thing. I'm referring solely to legitimate acts of torture, like Waterboarding. And I don't mean surfing.
  • Do you have any proof whatsoever, any proof that would fit WP's Attribution policies, and the criteria here Historical method: authenticity and provenance, to prove (a) waterboarding was ever approved by any US Govt. Executive Agency and/or Dept., and (b) (most importantly) waterboarding was ever used in recent years? Rob Smith 15:47, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Haven't a clue what any of that has to do with deceit, though... Kazumaru 20:32, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

"More then half of Americans agree that their is liberal media bias"

Here is an interesting poll which gives more evidence of liberal media bias [4], you may want to consider adding that information to this article.--Tash 22:06, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Actually that is an interesting poll, but you're reading words into it that's not there. First, it simply says that 'more than half of Americans say new orgs...are biased'. It does not say 'liberal bias'. Many, many people do indeed believe the MSM is biased, and many believe it is biased towards the right. Bias is most obvious on Fox News, who make a mockery of their tacky marketing phrase 'Fair & Balanced'. Anybody can see their entire output is heavily slanted to the right (cf. the use of the phrase 'Homicide Bombers', the only org outside the White House to use the phrase; even the Army uses the phrase 'Suicide Bomber', as it's more accurate). But bias is also visible in places like the NYT, which have a tendency to bias left.

Bias is everywhere, and the sooner people on the Right understand that the Left believe this too, the better. If all sides of the argument see bias, maybe we should fix our news? PhilLynott 22:20, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

That is a very interesting analysis; so liberals are pro-"suicide bomber" whereas right-wingers in the White House and FOX News oppose it. Even the Pentagon has jumped on the liberal bandwagon with this one, defying thier right-wing bosses and cow towing to the liberal slant. Hmmmm, that's news itself. Rob Smith 22:30, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
We should include the quote from Diane Sawyer when she said she was being interviewed for jury duty. A lawyer asked her if she could be objective. She responded with something like, "I'm a journalist. I'm always objective." The Courtroom broke out into a roar of laughter. Sawyer says it was the most embarassing moment of her life. Rob Smith 22:12, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
Yes, after a second look it did not say liberal bias, thanks for the catch. But still, if you look through the article, it seems to imply leftest bias in the media. --Tash 22:33, 9 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Poor Diane. :-( A long way from those long walks on the beach with Richard Nixon in exile. Sawyer was part of the very small staff working for Nixon post-exile. She had a nible mind, and a fierce dedication to Nixon. Then she moved East, married Mike Nichols...and what happened! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 01:23, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Monica Crowley now is the spiritual heir of Nixon's thinking, although Hillary Clinton has been the most successful at the ballot box using everything she learned from Nixon. Amazing, how the true heirs of Nixonion thought all seem to be women. Rob Smith 13:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Nixon said several times he was profoundly influenced by his Mother's values and thoughts....--şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 18:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

Example 17

Chamberlain was a Conservative; the last Liberal PM was Lloyd George (1916-22). (Source: G7mzh 10:18, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

No, you see, he's an unpopular figure so he becomes a liberal by default. Fuzzy901 14:45, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
Right. Let's call it "liberalism in reverse." Rob Smith 14:47, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
  • If John Kerry, Al Gore and Ted Kennedy all switched parties and/or announced they were "Conservative", would that make it so? Fuzzy, your thinking is fuzzy, it seems. Although I do admit it is sometimes difficult to translate conservative UK to conservative US. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 14:56, 17 August 2007 (EDT)
The broader question is over the Communazi pact and the policy of appeasement. Chamberlain, like Rudolf Hess, thought peace between Germany & Great Britain was possible. Was Chamberlain a Communazi? I don't know, we'll have to look into it. Rob Smith 16:07, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Did Chamberlain ever switch parties? It seems he was MP for the Conservative Party since 1918, took part in governments of the Conservative Party, and later became their leader. Please correct me if I am wrong. Order 02:38, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

This is where the term Western betrayal#Czechoslovakia came from; the Treaty of Versailles set up many trip wires. Britian under Chamberlain failed to maintain thier obligations. At the time, it was labelled "appeasement", however now in retrospect, we see more and more Comintern subversion through the processes of setting up Leninist style united fronts. All falls into the category of Cold War revisionism since the opening of KGB, Comintern, and NSA Archives. Allen Weinstein is now the Archivist of the United States, and we are still collecting and categorizing documents. The process of actual interpretation is in its infancy. Rob Smith 12:13, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

Example 25

The example 25 is incomprehensible. Can somebody rephrase it to make clear what the point actually is. Order 02:19, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

Point 25 is still confusing, close to being unintelligible. If CP wants to refer to it elsewhere, it better be clear what is meant. Order 23:47, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

This is completely ridiculous. "Liberals take up more of their allotted time in debates." This is just the sort of school-yard jibe that gets Conservapedia a bad name with liberal outlets. There is no statistical basis to it and it just sound like the ravings of somebody who once got talked over on a school debate. Delete it.--KeithJoseph 12:13, 6 October 2007 (EDT)

Example 24

This point confuses me a little. The proof that someone's a liberal is their denial of it? Doesn't this inadvertently encompass those are actually aren't liberals? This is truly dangerous territory! (Imagine a mental disease is diagnosed by the patient's denial of having it - how do we actually find out whether someone actually has it or not? A normal person who logically says "I do not have this disease" is equally "proven" to have it then someone who actually has it, according to this example) ATang 10:33, 30 August 2007 (EDT)

Example 34

This footnote is confusing. I'm assuming this is a typo. Would seem to be an example of conservatives "demanding an apology". Don't know if it's an apology per se, but definitely doesn't strengthen the argument in any way.


Add Uncyclopedia to the list at the top. They sport heavy liberal bias and hate speech against conservatives. May God have mercy on their souls for their blasphemy! ScorpionVote for Pedro 15:40, 8 September 2007 (EDT)


I go along with much of what is said but here in Brit the word 'liberal' has a somewhat different connotation. We have here three mainstrwam political parties: Labour (or, as it likes to call itself nowaday, 'New Labour' - even more extremist than 'old' Labour!), Conservative (aka 'Tory'), and Liberals (aka 'LibDems'!). There are a handful of other parties e.g. the BNP or British National Party, UKIP, the UK Independence Party, and there are a number of locality-based parties. Of the mainstream parties, the Tories are generally considered to be the party of the right but this is not necessarily so.

Historically, the Liberal Party (formerly the Whigs), now incorporated into the LibDems, was the party of the right at which time the Tories were considered to be 'middle of the road'!

Our biggest media presentation problem here is the BBC, which whilst repetedly saying they are 'independent' has in fact a disgusting 'liberal' agenda all of its own. And we have to cough up a hefty licence fee for watching television which goes into BBC coffers - even though we may not ever watch BBC! In fact, according to a strict interpretation of the law, we are strictly liable to pay this even if we never watch any TV but have a computer monitor! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Celtish (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2007

  • Yes, Celtish! The true mark of Socialism, it is. You are invited to improve our article on the BBC. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 16:31, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Okay celtish 21:38, 14 September 2007 (EDT) Done celtish 14:31, 15 September 2007 (EDT)

BBC is not a for profit entity, is it? unlike most of the so-called "mainstream" media in the US. Neither is BBC like the American Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which subsists on Jim & Tammy Faye Baker style beg-a-thons and the public purse. Rob Smith 16:35, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

  • Rob, the BBC is more like PBS, than not, however. Both controlled by appointed boards, made by the Government, and funded, in whole or in part, by it. In the UK, unlike the U.S., they are forced to pay a tax to maintain the BBC, which, like I said, is more socialistic then what we have. Not better by much, however. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 17:05, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Although the BBC is technically not-for-profit it does have an enormous worldwide revenue from the resale of programmes and repeat fees, from the sale of CDs, videos, DVDs, and a wide range of books and magazines. It is in fact a major publisher in its own right. celtish 21:38, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

NY Times and McCain

Okay, to avoid an edit war, I'm leaving your last revision intact - the NYT did in fact reject the original piece that McCain had submitted. As I mentioned on the main Talk page, the reason for the rejection wasn't because they were trying to silence McCain - they were trying to get him to revise his piece to include a comparable level of detail to the Obama piece. Simply put, they asked McCain to give them more material about his views, strategies and plans prior to publication. That's not censoring the man, it's giving him an opportunity to make the most of his rebuttal piece, and frankly they blew the opportunity. When you look at his piece (as published by others) compared to Obama's, there's just the same talking points and general attacks that he's been putting out for weeks, and his one-liner for Iraq sounds a lot like "stay the course". The NY Times respects McCain and endorsed him in the primaries, so when you read between the lines of their rejection email to McCain, it's basically saying "Um, Senator, we'd be glad to publish your Op-Ed reply to Obama, but unless you want to look completely outclassed you need to beef this up first". It speaks volumes about the McCain campaign leadership that they didn't take the opportunity to step up with more substance, but chose to play the "they won't give us equal time" card, and now it's backfired on them.

So I'll leave your edit, and add a reference to the actual NYT response that shows they weren't shutting him out, but asking for more instead. --DinsdaleP 22:39, 21 July 2008 (EDT)

I love

how the conservative people here don't realize that even their name implies conservative bias <3 --Lorana 13:51, 27 November 2008 (EST)

  • I love how liberals insist that the truth, or anything they don't agree with is bias. --₮K/Talk 01:38, 29 November 2008 (EST)

criteria for exposing bias

An article shoots itself in the footnote if it employs conservative bias and all sorts of the tricks listed to expose liberal bias. This sort of article has to be very carefully done to avoid wild statements and rhetorical tricks.RJJensen 01:39, 18 May 2009 (EDT)


It's more pervasive than you might think, Professor Jensen. For years, the Encyclopedia Britannica has carefully concealed the tens of millions of deaths caused by Communism. If we relied on encyclopedias, periodicals and broadcast media, and the Internet to tell us the truth about history and politics, we would get the Liberal point of view almost all the time.

Liberals like to claim that this is impossible, given the supposed "corporate" ownership of these sources - and arguing that corporations are always "right wing" or conservative, which in turn is based on an assumption that all owners of corporations (i.e., stockholders) are greedy capitalists. However, like most liberal arguments, this one is not backed up by facts. It is rather based on a series of shaky and untested assumptions.

Which brings us back to why liberal bias is such a problem. Liberals routinely dismiss the entire concept of checking their theories against the facts. What the assume to be so is simply beyond question for them. Which is way that Harvard president was pressured to resign when he dared to suggest that social scientists should study the factors responsible for the small proportion of women in the mathematics profession. It's a feminist (i.e., liberal) article of faith that discrimination is always the cause of small proportions of women in jobs they feel ought to have equal numbers. The idea that aptitude or even simply inclination might be a significant factor would, if true, disprove their assumption - hence the outright hostility not only to the idea but to the man who suggested it.

It is liberal hostility to contrary ideas, especially coupled with personal attacks, that is the hallmark of liberal bias. Conservatives, on the other hand, are much more likely to say, "If you can prove it, I'm willing to change my mind." --Ed Poor Talk 21:26, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

I suggest that liberal bias certainly exists but 1) it has to be carefully identified as a way of presenting information (and NOT as a set of poltiical values; everyone has values); 2) it must be distinguished from other kinds of bias, like leftism (the leftists and liberals fight like crazy on campus); and 3) the article should be as free as possible of any bias so it does not open itself to charges of hypocrisy. in a word, "If you can prove it, CP can use it." RJJensen 21:32, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
I disagree with point #3 "the article should be as free as possible of any bias". We do not try to be neutral here. This is Conservapedia for a reason. --DeanStalk 15:29, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
I deleted the sections of the article that at present fail Ed Poor's test "If you can prove it". They can be restored when proof is found. An example of the kind of evidence that should be looked at, see the LA Times report on Edwards in October 2007 at LA TIMES on Edwards affair. RJJensen 21:50, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

  • If I post that "America is the last, best hope for all those clamoring for freedom, we should not, we will not, under any circumstances fall into that liberal trap of thinking it is necesarry to back up a truism. We are Conservatives, we believe in common sense! What would be next? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Should we feel the need to support that sentence? Does anyone here actually believe a conservative, Christian encyclopedia needs to offer proof? How silly! We have no obligation, morally or intellectually to play by the liberal's moronic and self-serving "rules". Because we are what we are, I would like to remind everyone, certain "conventions" that have been instituted by the liberal elite will not be conformed to here. Period. If some are worried this will make us look "bad", I say to them: Bad to whom? Liberals? Do we care? No! Stop the madness of conforming to their expectations. We hold certain truths to be self-evident, gentlemen. --₮K/Admin/Talk 22:37, 19 May 2009 (EDT)
I agree, TK, but we can describe the political viewpoints of those who:
  1. oppose certain freedoms such as that of accumulating large amounts of private property and/or selling goods and services at whatever price buyers are willing to pay (i.e., socialists)
  2. insist that their freedom must be respected and tolerated to the point that they would ban outright any spoken or written expression of disapproval (see hate speech)
The difference between conservatives and liberals relevant here is that conservatives are willing to let both sides in the debate be heard - while liberals insist on censoring the opposition. That is what the Boston Globe did by dismissing as a "bigot" anyone disagrees with their argument that homosexuality is equivalent to race or ethnicity.
The counter-argument they don't want anyone to hear is that while race is known to be completely inherited, homosexuality is still being studied and even homosexual scientists insist that there is a huge non-biological component. --Ed Poor Talk 15:11, 20 May 2009 (EDT)
Sorry was traveling...but we agree, as you outline above, and I don't really think Richard disagrees as to substance either, which is of course more bad news for our enemies.  :D --₮K/Admin/Talk 03:32, 21 May 2009 (EDT)