Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Liberal bias

2009-10-09T02:29:26Z

Lordacro:

'''Liberal bias''' is partisan selection of information to support [[liberal]] policies. This selection bias can be expressed by reporters and other journalists in mainstream media, while usually presenting themselves as objective reporting mediums. It includes techniques such as [[placement bias]], [[photo bias]] and [[liberal style]]. There is a difference between being liberal, having a liberal perspective, and having a liberal bias.

The essence of liberal bias is to dismiss or even to censor all opposing views. For liberals, to allow the airing or publishing of an opposing view creates the risk that people might discover errors in the liberal viewpoint. On the other hand, Conservatives typically uphold freedom of ideological expression, with many expressing they although they may oppose a liberal view with every fibre of their being, they will defend to the death their right to say it, because they believe that in the [[marketplace of ideas]] the true will always win over the false. (At Conservapedia we are not afraid to mention and even to summarize anti-conservative arguments.)

==Conservative Media Dominance==
Fox News is the most watched cable news network, and is highly conservative. The loudest of the loud on radio (Rush, Bill, etc) are conservative. Is this still an issue? Sure, magazines and newspapers can be biased, but nobody even reads them anymore (I used to sell them, I know). Blogs are biased to the writers' opinions. What does that leave? Food for thought.

==Conservative Opposition to Liberal Bias==
[[Ann Coulter]] wrote:
*To obscure the overwhelming liberal dominance of the media, the few designated media "[[conservatives]]" are cited tirelessly in testimonies to the [[ideological]] diversity in the nation's [[newsroom]]s. Democrats in the media are [[editors]], national [[correspondent]]s, [[news anchor]]s, and [[reporter]]s. Republicans in the media are "from the right" [[polemic]]ists grudgingly tolerated within the liberal behemoth. Republican views must be accompanied by a conspicuous warning: "[[Partisan]] Conservative Opinion Coming!" [[Neutral]] news slots are reserved for Democrats exclusively. "Balance" is created by having a liberal host a debate between a liberal and a moderate Republican. <ref>''[[Slander (book)|]]'', P. 60</ref>

In June 2009, [[Republican]]s in the House of Representatives have created the Media Caucus to fight the Democrat-aligned media propaganda.

==Left-wing defense of Liberal Bias==

The managing editor of ''[[Time (magazine)|Time]]'' Magazine dismissed the need for [[objectivity]] altogether, saying:

:I have felt that we have to actually say, ‘We have a point of view about something and we feel strongly about it, we just have to be assertive about it and say it positively.'"<ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2008/04/22/time-editor-objective-journalism-fantasy-justifies-greening-iwo-jima-phot Time Editor: Objective Journalism a 'Fantasy']</ref>

A ''Boston Globe'' editor, Peter Accardi, proudly proclaims that he will not publish Letters to the Editor critical of homosexuality:

:"I won't run any letter that promotes bigotry against any group. You'd be surprised how many anti-Semitic letters we get, but not one will see the light of day on a letters page I handle. Same with anti-black, anti-Italian, etc."<ref>http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=4324&department=CFI&categoryid=cfreport</ref>

Note the convoluted logic which assumes that any criticism of the behavior of members of a group must be due to "bigotry", which is itself a bigoted attack on the critics designed to prevent any consideration of the principles or facts supporting their arguments.

==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>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>http://www.cnsnews.com/facts/2007/facts2007914.asp</ref><ref>http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/weekinreview/25bott.html?ei=5088&en=452926dcb11511a3&ex=1248667200&pagewanted=all&position=</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 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.

"The reason the Times, and to a lesser extent the Post, are so important, and they are, is because the TV and radio - all of the media - copy it sycophantically," he [John Stossel] said. "That's how bias at the Times becomes bias in other media."<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200401/CUL20040128a.html</ref>}}

[[Image:Liberal Bias.png|none|500px]]
'''The following persons, organizations, television programs or media outlets have well known liberal bias:'''

* ''[[The New York Times]]'' <ref>Reporters and editors today are overwhelmingly liberal politically, as studies of the attitudes of key members of the press have repeatedly shown. Should you doubt these findings, recall the statement of Daniel Okrent, then the public editor at the New York Times. Under the headline, "Is the New York times a Liberal Newspaper?," Mr. Okrent's first sentence was, "Of course it is." [http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110009203] </ref>
* [[ABC]], [[CBS]] <ref>Townhall.com, [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MarvinOlasky/2001/12/04/enabling_media_bias Enabling media bias], Marvin Olasky, December 4, 2001.</ref>
* [[Dan Rather]] <ref>During a phone conversation, [[Bernard Goldberg]] asked him, "What do you consider the ''New York Times''? Rather answered, "Middle of the road." (''[[Bias (book)|Bias]]'', page 221)</ref>
* [[NBC]] News
* [[LA Times]]
* [[Michael Moore]]
* [[The Daily Show]]
* [[Real Time]] with [[Bill Maher]]
* [[Washington Post]]
* [[MSNBC]]
* [[BBC]]
* [[Guardian (uk)]] ([[UK]] news organization)

==Media==

===LA Times===

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 of 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 8th, the mainsteam 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.

===CBS News===
[[Image:Bio-pic.jpg|right|thumb|180px|[[Bernard Goldberg]]]]
CBS insider [[Bernard Goldberg]] wrote the definitive book on liberal bias in the media, simply entitled ''[[Bias (book)|Bias]]''.
*He asserts that an ''"inability to see liberal views as liberal views ... is at the heart of the entire problem."''
*He wrote: "[[Pauline Kael]], for years the brilliant film critic at the ''New Yorker'', was completely baffled about how [[Richard Nixon]] could have beaten [[George McGovern]] in 1972: 'Nobody I know voted for Nixon.' Never mind that Nixon carried 49 states. She wasn't kidding." <ref>(''Bias (book)'', page 222-223)</ref>

Goldberg also suggested liberals don't even see their liberal values as "liberal":
*"Their views on all the big social issues ... aren't liberal views at all. They're simply reasonable views, shared by all the reasonable people the media elites mingle with ..." <ref>(''Bias (book)'', page 222)</ref>

During the [[Vietnam War]], the [[Soviet Union]] was the principal ally of [[Communist ]] North Vietnam, providing weapons and training in what was a major conflict of the [[Cold War]] that took 58,000 American lives. ''CBS Evening News with [[Walter Cronkite]]'' regularly carried news reports from its [[Moscow]] Bureau Chief, [[Bernard Redmont]]. When peace negotiations commenced with North Vietnam in Paris, Redmont became ''CBS News'' [[Paris]] Bureau Chief. What Redmont never reported during the ten year conflict was, Redmont had been a [[KGB]] operative since the 1930s, and member of the notorious [[Silvermaster group]]. <ref>[http://hnn.us/articles/11581.html KGB file 43173 vol. 2 (v) pp. 46-55], Alexander Vassiliev, Notes on A. Gorsky’s Report to Savchenko S.R., 23 December 1949. Original document from KGB Archives [http://www.johnearlhaynes.org/page46.html].</ref> Redmont was the only journalist to whom his fellow [[Comintern]] party member, and North Vietnamese chief negotiator, Mai Van Bo, granted an interview to bring the Communist point of view into American living rooms in what has been called, "the living room war."

The selective and editorial reporting of the Vietnam war is often cited as a manifest example of liberal bias in the mainstream media, with Hanoi reportedly affirming that it could not have won "without the Western press."<ref>Uwe Siemon-Netto in the International Herald Tribune, reprinted in Encounter, October 1979</ref>

===New York Times===
[[Image:Arthursulzbergerjr.jpg|right|thumbnail|150px|[[New York Times]] publisher [[Arthur Sulzberger Jr.]]]]
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>

===Newsweek===

Perhaps the most liberal weekly news magazine, [[Newsweek]], is seen going out its way to impugn evangelical Christianity. As far back as April 8, 1996, a Newsweek article promoted skepticism concerning the resurrection of Christ, presenting various theories countering the Biblical record,<ref>Rethinking The Resurrection, by Kenneth L. Woodward, Apr 8, 1996</ref> and the transformational results of faith in such,[http://www.cbn.com/700club/features/amazing] while failing to provide scholarly evangelical responses which refute their theories.<ref>[http://www.tektonics.org/TK-J.html See under Jesus-Resurrection]</ref><ref>[http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/theological-dictionary/TD1W0401.pdf Alternate Theories of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ— Part Two]</ref><ref>[http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/bodily.html The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Dr. William Lane Craig]</ref>

Insidious attempts to marginalize evangelical Christianity continue to be replicated, most recently with the article by editor Jon Meacham (who recently compared President Obama to being like God) writing "The End of Christian America" (Apr 4, 2009), in which he opined that it was "a good thing" that America was "less influenced by movements and arguments of an explicitly Christian character than they were even five years ago."

In addition, on Nov. 13, 2006 Newsweek featured an article by [[atheist]] Sam Harris, who sees Christianity as "incompatible with genuine morality",<ref>A Case Against Faith, Newsweek, Nov. 13, 2006</ref> based upon his own objectively baseless and mutable moral authority.<ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Atheism1.html Atheism versus Christ]</ref>

As noted by Don Feder<ref>[http://www.donfeder.com/articles/0611GodComplex.pdf In culture war, Newsweek tells evangelicals – bring the troops home, November 27, 2006]</ref> in response to a Newsweek article titled, “America’s God Complex – Like George W. Bush, The Religious Right Is At The Crossroads”<ref>November 13, 2006</ref> Newsweek advocates a faith that does not take moral stands or become involved in changing moral policy.

Consistent with this ethos, Newsweek proactively attacked historical Biblical morality in regards to [[homosexuality and biblical interpretation]],<ref>“Our Mutual Joy, Dec 15, 2008 by religion editor Lisa Miller</ref> which attempts have resulted in extensive refutation by evangelical scholars and writers.<ref>[http://www.robgagnon.net/NewsweekMillerHomosexResp.htm More than “Mutual Joy”: Lisa Miller of Newsweek against Scripture and Jesus]</ref><ref>[http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Homosex_versus_the_Bible.html Homosexual relations and the Bible]</ref><ref>[http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=2881 Turning the Bible on its Head -- Newsweek Goes for Gay Marriage]</ref>

=== [[PBS]] ===
The taxpayer-funded Public Broadcasting System has become a left-leaning channel for the liberal viewpoint. This despite the 1985 rule that all PBS shows must be "noncommercial, nonpartisan and nonsectarian." Their tax-subsidized programming includes celebrating [[lesbian]]-feminist choirs, “transgender” riots, and a liberal teenager fighting against [[abstinence]] education. As part of its wave of secular fundamentalism, PBS celebrates even late-term abortionists with a fanaticism. The PBS show NOW was devoted to smearing the pro-life movement as terrorists <ref>[http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/524/index.html Abortion Providers Under Siege] PBS, June 12, 2009</ref> In a fake display of following the rules, 300-plus PBS stations have been instructed to avoid any kind of religious programming.

=== Media Bias===

A 2005 report<ref>[http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.pdf A MEASURE OF MEDIA BIAS] </ref> by Tim Groseclose and Jeffrey Milyo political scientists at UCLA concluded that, based on estimated ideological scores, all of the news
outlets they examined, except Fox News’ Special Report and the Washington Times, showed a strong liberal bias (scores to the left of the average member of Congress). Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal. Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times scored right of the average U.S. voter.
<blockquote>
"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are." <ref>http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/page.asp?RelNum=6664</ref>
</blockquote>

ABC, CBS, and NBC together have unloaded more than a thousand stories on Obama’s presidential campaign but not a single story devoted to examining Obama’s abysmal abortion record. <ref>[http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bozell/2008/10/14/bozell-column-whos-fierce-abortion Bozell Column: Who's 'Fierce' on Abortion?] NewsBusters.org, October 14, 2008</ref>

===Vision of the anointed===
[[Image:Thomassowell.jpg‎|thumbnail|150px|right|[[Thomas Sowell]]]]
Economist [[Thomas Sowell]] in his book published in 1996, ''The Vision of the Anointed'', discusses the anointed vision of liberals and liberalism to promote their agenda.

Desperate evasions of discordant evidence, and the denigration and even demonizing of those presenting such evidence, are indicative of the high stakes in contemporary [[culture war]]s, which are not about alternative policies but [[Values clarification|alternative worlds]] and of alternative roles of liberals in these worlds. Opponents must be shown to be not merely mistaken but morally lacking, in Sowell's view. This approach replaces the intellectual discussion of arguments by the moral extermination of persons. This denigration or [[demonizing]] of those opposed to their views not only has the desired effect of discrediting the opposition but also has the unintended effect of cutting off the path of retreat from positions which become progressively less tenable with the passage of time and the accumulation of discordant evidence. The very thought that those dismissed as simplistic or maligned might have been right–even if only on a single issue–is at best galling and potentially devastating. Their last refuge in this situation are their good intentions.<ref>Thomas Sowell, [http://www.li.suu.edu/library/circulation/Lewis/ba2350tlVisionoftheAnointedShortVersion.pdf ''The Vision of the Anointed''], New York: Basic Books, 1996.</ref>

==Statistical data==

In 2008, John Perazzo, writing in FrontPageMagazine.com, presented major research findings <ref>[http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=32928 In the Tank: A Statistical Analysis of Media Bias By John Perazzo FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, October 31, 2008]</ref><ref>[http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/pdf/BiasBasics.pdf Mostly from Media Research Center, The Liberal Media Exposed]</ref> regarding the underlying beliefs of news media professionals.

* Between 90 and 97 percent of news media professionals have consistently affirmed themselves to be pro-choice on the matter of abortion, with more than half of the respondents agreeing that abortion should be legal under any and all circumstances.<ref>Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman’s 1981 survey of 240 journalists at top media outlets; Los Angeles Times 1985 survey of 2,700 journalists at 621 American newspapers; Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman’s 1986 study of the media’s attitudes and their influence on society, as published in the National Federation for Decency’s Journal; Indiana University journalism professors David Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit’s 1992 survey of 1,410 newspaper, magazine, television, and radio journalists; Stanley Rothman and Amy Black’s 1995 study of the media elite.</ref>
* Between 6 and 8 percent attended religious services regularly, a tiny fraction of the corresponding rate for the public at large.<ref>Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman’s 1986 study of the media’s attitudes and their influence on society, Op. cit.; David Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit’s 1992 survey of 1,410 journalists, Op. cit.; Annenberg Public Policy Center and Annenberg Foundation Trust’s 2005 survey of 673 journalists from newspapers, television, magazines, radio, and Internet; Pew Research Center’s 2008 survey of 222 journalists and news executives.</ref>
* Fully 81 percent of news media professionals favor affirmative action in business and academia.<ref>Los Angeles Times 1985 survey of 2,700 journalists at 621 American newspapers, Op. cit.</ref>
* More than half of respondents said that adultery could be acceptable under certain circumstances; only 15 percent said it was always wrong.<ref>Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman’s 1981 survey of 240 journalists at top media outlets, Op. cit.</ref>
* Between 67 and 76 percent were opposed to prayer being permitted in public schools.<ref>Los Angeles Times 1985 survey of 2,700 journalists at 621 American newspapers; Journalist and Financial Reporting’s 1988 poll of 151 business reporters from 30 major publications.</ref>
* In 1964, 94 percent of media professionals voted for Democrat Lyndon Johnson over Republican Barry Goldwater.<ref>Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman’s 1981 survey of 240 journalists at top media outlets, Op. cit.</ref>
* In 1968, 86 percent voted for Democrat Hubert Humphrey over Republican Richard Nixon.<ref>Ibid.</ref>
* In 1972, 81 percent voted for Democrat George McGovern over the incumbent Nixon.<ref>Ibid.</ref>
* In 1976, 81 percent voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican Gerald Ford.<ref>Ibid.</ref>
* In 1980, twice as many cast their ballots for Carter rather than Republican Ronald Reagan.<ref>California State University survey of reporters from the 50 largest U.S. newspapers.</ref>
* In 1984, 58 percent supported Democrat Walter Mondale, whom Reagan defeated in the biggest landslide in presidential election history.<ref>Los Angeles Times 1985 survey of 2,700 journalists at 621 American newspapers, Op. cit.</ref>
* In 1988, White House correspondents from various major newspapers, television networks, magazines, and news services supported Democrat Michael Dukakis over Republican George H.W. Bush by a ratio of 12-to-1.<ref>U.S. News & World Report writer Kenneth Walsh’s 1995 study of 28 White House correspondents.</ref>
* In the 1992 Presidential election, among Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, the disparity was 89 percent vs. 7 percent, in Clinton’s favor over the incumbent Bush.<ref>1996 Freedom Forum survey of 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, Op. cit.</ref>
* All told, White House correspondents during the late ’80s and early ’90s voted for Democrats at 7 times the rate at which they voted for Republicans.<ref>U.S. News & World Report writer Kenneth Walsh’s 1995 study of 28 White House correspondents, Op. cit.</ref>
* In a 2004, poll of campaign journalists, those based outside of Washington, D.C., supported Democrat John Kerry over Republican George W. Bush by a ratio of 3-to-1. Those based inside the Beltway favored Kerry by a 12-to-1 ratio<ref>.New York Times columnist John Tierney’s 2004 survey of 153 campaign journalists covering the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, Massachusetts.</ref>
* In a 2004 nationwide poll of 300 newspaper and television journalists, 52 percent supported Kerry, while 19 percent supported Bush.<ref>University of Connecticut Department of Public Policy’s 2005 survey of 300 television and newspaper journalists nationwide.</ref>
* In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.<ref>MSNBC investigative reporter Bill Dedman’s study of the campaign contributions of 144 journalists.</ref>
* A 2008 Investors Business Daily study put the campaign donation ratio at 11.5-to-1, in favor of Democrats. In terms of total dollars given, the ratio was 15-to-1.<ref>William Tate’s July 2008 report in Investor’s Business Daily.</ref>

*In a 1988 survey of business reporters, 54 percent of respondents identified themselves as Democrats, 9 percent as Republicans.<ref>Journalist and Financial Reporting’s 1988 poll of 151 business reporters, Op. cit.</ref>
* In a 1992 poll of journalists working for newspapers, magazines, radio, and television, 44 percent called themselves Democrats, 16 percent Republicans.<ref>David Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit’s 1992 survey of 1,410 journalists, Op. cit.</ref>
* In a 1996 poll of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers, 61 percent identified themselves as Democrats, 15 percent as Republicans.<ref>American Society of Newspaper editors 1996 survey of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers of all sizes nationwide.</ref>
* In a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation poll, media professionals were nearly 7 times likelier to call themselves Democrats rather than Republicans<ref>.Kaiser Family Foundation 1996 poll of 301 “media professionals,” 300 “policymakers,” and 1,206 members of the general public.</ref>
* In a 1981 study of 240 journalists nationwide, 65 percent identified themselves as liberals, 17 percent as conservatives.<ref>Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman’s 1986 study of the media’s attitudes and their influence on society, Op. cit.</ref>
* In a 1983 study of news reporters, executives, and staffers, 32 percent identified themselves as liberals, 11 percent as conservatives.<ref>David Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit’s 1982-83 study of more than 1,000 reporters, executives, and staffers nationwide.</ref>
* In a 1992 study of more than 1,400 journalists, 44 percent identified themselves as liberals, 22 percent as conservatives.<ref>David Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit’s 1992 survey of 1,410 journalists, Op. cit.</ref>
* In a 1996 study of Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, 61 percent identified themselves as liberals, 9 percent as conservatives.<ref>1996 Freedom Forum survey of 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, Op. cit.</ref>
* In a 1996 study of 1,037 journalists, the respondents identified themselves as liberals 4 times more frequently than as conservatives. Among journalists working for newspapers with circulations exceeding 50,000, the ratio of liberals to conservatives was 5.4 to 1.<ref>American Society of Newspaper editors 1996 survey, Op. cit.</ref>
* In a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation study of media professionals, the ratio of self-identified liberals to conservatives was 4.2 to 1.<ref>Kaiser Family Foundation 1996 poll of 301 “media professionals,” 300 “policymakers,” and 1,206 members of the general public, Op. cit.</ref>
* In a 2004 Pew Research Center study of journalists and media executives, the ratio of self-identified liberals to conservatives was 4.9 to 1.<ref>Pew Research Center 2004 poll of 547 journalists and media executives, including 247 at national-level media outlets.</ref>
* In a 2005 University of Connecticut study of 300 journalists, the liberal-to-conservative ratio was 2.8 to 1.<ref>University of Connecticut Department of Public Policy’s 2005 survey of 300 television and newspaper journalists nationwide, Op. cit.</ref>
* In a 2005 Annenberg Public Policy Center poll of nearly 700 journalists, the liberal-to-conservative ratio was 3.4 to 1.<ref>Annenberg Public Policy Center and Annenberg Foundation Trust’s 2005 survey of 673 journalists, Op. cit.</ref>
* In a 2007 Pew Research Center study of journalists and news executives, the ratio was 4 liberals for each conservative.<ref>Pew Research Center’s 2007 survey of 222 journalists and news executives at national outlets.</ref>

A similar landmark study was conducted in 1990, examining the political leanings of the individuals, rather than the organizations, who were most often cited or quoted as experts on various topics in the news. The examination showed that on the subject of welfare and related issues, liberal experts were quoted 75 percent of the time, conservatives 22 percent. On consumer issues, the liberal-conservative ratio was 63 percent to 22 percent. On environmental issues, the ratio was 79 percent to 18 percent. And regarding nuclear energy, the ratio was 77 percent to 20 percent.<ref>Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter, The Media Elite: America’s New Power Brokers (New York: Hastings House, 1990).</ref>

The decidedly liberal majority in news media is similar to that seen in American colleges and faculty, which most journalists were influenced by. A major study showed that 50% of American college faculty identified themselves as Democrats and 11% as Republicans (with 33% being Independent, and 5% identifying themselves with another party). 72% described themselves as "to the left of center," including 18% who were strongly left. Only 15% described themselves as right of center, including only 3% who were "strongly right."<ref>North American Academic Study Survey (NAASS) of students, faculty and administrators at colleges and universities in the United States and Canada 1999. The Berkeley Electronic Press</ref><ref>[http://montages.blogspot.com/2005/04/conservatives-underrepresented-in.html Conservatives: Underrepresented in Academia?]</ref>

Many conservative and a few liberal commentators have remarked on the seeming extraordinary favor shown toward Barack Obama during his candidacy, and presidency. A 2008 comprehensive analysis conducted by the Media Research Center[http://www.mrc.org/SpecialReports/2008/obama/obama.asp] of every evening news report by the NBC, ABC and CBS television networks, showed that positive stories about Obama since he came to national prominence outnumbered negative stories 7 to 1.<ref>[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72914 Study: ABC, NBC, CBS strongly support Obama August 20, 2008]</ref> During the Presidents candidacy, MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews stated, "Yeah, well, you know what? I want to do everything I can to make this thing work, this new presidency work,..." 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>

A more recent remark by 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>

==See Also==
*[[Previous Breaking News/Liberal bias|Examples of liberal bias from previous "Breaking News" articles]]
*[[More News/Liberal Bias|Articles about '''Liberal Bias''' from "More News"]]
*[[Homosexuality and the Media]]
*[[Conservative bias]]
*[[Conservative Links]]
*[[Professor values]]
*[[Journalistic malpractice]]

{{Examples of liberal bias}}

==External links==

*[http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics2admissions.asp Media Bias Basics] - Admissions of Liberal Bias
*[http://www.ihatethemedia.com IHateTheMedia.com] - Pointing out Liberal Bias daily
*[http://books.google.com/books?id=fH5H492nmtMC&pg=PA271&lpg=PA271&dq=newsweek+war+against+christianity&source=bl&ots=x8qHuakjQh&sig=sDfIvPwS9893hYoJVO8Tfz8DDrE&hl=en&ei=jUY6SrCIG9G_twfgg6HjDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPP1,M1 Persecution, By David Limbaugh]

{{liberalism}}
[[Category: Deceit]]
[[Category: Liberalism]]

Talk:Liberal

2009-10-09T02:07:06Z

Lordacro:

[[Talk:Liberal/Arch1|Archive 1]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch2|Archive 2]]
|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch3|Archive 3]]|[[Talk:Liberal/Arch4|Archive 4]]
 

==This article is so biased it loses credibility.==
I agree with the below poster on point 1, anyone (liberal or not) can clearly see that the first paragraph is pointless bashing. No facts involved. The rest of the article is not serious at all. The picture is a cartoon. Is this a comedy website? Put a 'conservative spin' on subjects, fine, and most pages are alright, but this is sad.

Also, don't begin things with "Some people suggest" or whatever. That screams non-factual.

I like the idea of removing the liberal spin from wiki, but why sink lower by smearing a conservative spin on it? Makes no sense.

Thanks

== This Article is so flawed it makes my head spin ==
Problems with this page in order and how to fix them:
'''1. The article's definition of a liberal''' "A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards." is baseless. It has no station nor can i find this definition anywhere else on the internet. I would suggest using a definition from the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy (online)

'''2. list of so called political positions and practices'''
The lists header "A liberal supports many of the following political positions and practices. " on itself is stylistically non-academic. It could be said that that a conservatie likewise suports many of the following political positions and practices: freedom, Christ, and killing children. Many are sported but not all. Moreover, the list contains many practices that should not necessarily be attributed to liberals.

Most of the views contained in the list are validly liberal however most of them do not have citations and those that do are blatant straw men.

'''3. picture'''
The picture contained in the article is non-factual. its just a cartoon. I would suggest the political compass graph of the beliefs of candidates in the democratic primaries.

'''4. Liberals in north america today'''
Again, no facts here.
the following claims are made:
<blockquote>
Democrats and many media outlets in the U.S. are often liberal.[6]

* Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism. [7]

* Liberals claimed a monopoly on compassion, decency, and social justice (as defined by themselves), posing as the sole defenders of civic virtue against a horde of backwoodsmen, racists, and religious fanatics. [4]
</blockquote>

The first really doens't say anything. i could likewise say that many media outlets in the US are often conservative. The word many is the cause of the meaninless.

The second is unfactual due to the word "Some". I can also say that some argue that conservatives typically suport economic policies similar to that of facism. (and really come on? who's closer to Hitler Mendela or Palin? [though i supose Mendella isn't north america])

The third statment says that liberals claim something however it doesn't speek to any actual policy or official statment.

to fix this i would sugest that this entire section is eather deleted or rewriten by a civics profesor if avalable.

This is what i have to say on this article for now anyway. more comming perhaps. --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 21:34, 19 November 2008 (EST)
::Please stop blaspheming. The article is correct, and since you say that it isn't, I can say with 95% success that you are a liberal, unChristian, unAmerican, and a mass murderer. I can say with 106% certainty that you are an avid practitioner of [[liberal deceit]].--[[User:JZim|JZim]] 21:42, 19 November 2008 (EST)

This is offencive. Your right though. i am a mass murderer, you just haven't herd of me because you don't watch the so called "liberal media" (it realy isn't) whcih reports on all the genocide stuff --[[User:Trekdude31|Trekdude31]] 22:03, 19 November 2008 (EST)

::Dude, chill out. Yes, this article is very biased against the liberal ideology, but this is Conservapedia; the whole site follows the anti-liberal regimin. I agree with what you are saying, but there's no need to get overly accusational and angry; then you are doing the exact same thing that the article is doing. We must discuss these problems calmly if any ground is to be covered. For the reasons you listed, I think I'll refrain from making any major edits for now.--[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

:: Good, because I don't have the time to clean up the tons of misspellings by the critics above.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:21, 9 January 2009 (EST)

:::Mr. Schlafly, may I ask you a question? Please don't ban me, I'm not going to make any changes here or on any highly controversial pages, I'm just wondering... Did you create Conservapedia to try to propigate a hateful opinion of Liberalism? Sometimes I get that vibe, which seems like a ridiculous position for a site advocating loving, Christian values to hold. I understand how tense a situation this can be, I just want to hear your response. Thanks! --[[user:ForeverPeace|ForeverPeace]]

The problem isn't so much the flagrant bias of this article so much as the fact that Conservapedia is so damn sanctimonious about Wikipedia's alleged bias. You people have no right to complain about bias when you wear your own so proudly on your sleeve. This whole enterprise makes you look like a bunch of petty, oblivious jackasses. Consider this a public service announcement.

Also, on an unrelated note, Wikipedia's article on Jesus is more comprehensive, more eloquently composed, more insightful, more educational, and more consistently cited than its counterpart here. Ironic, considering the whole point of Conservapedia was to provide a more Christian perspective on reality.

My comment start here (I want to make it clear since the previous comment is unsigned):

"A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing"

Is that an encyclopedic definition, suitable for an educational resource? I am not going to make any changes, because I do not want to be banned, but I can suggest a general definition for a leftist: "Someone who supports a more egalitarian distribution of wealth". I think all leftists agree with that. Now, as a conservative encyclopedia, you can and should explain the disadvantages of liberalism in the article, but it should also have an objective definition in the first place. --[[User:Quetzalcoatl|Quetzalcoatl]] 20:20, 5 August 2009 (EDT)

== Picture ==

Shouldn't the picture be something representative of liberals rather than a satirical cartoon?[[User:JPohl|JPohl]] 08:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, yes it should. I understand that this is supposed to be "an encyclopedia with articles written from a conservative viewpoint", but doesn't that make it especially necessary that we don't make ourselves look like clowns? If anything, that was probably drawn up by a self-aware liberal with a sense of humor. [[User:Harbinger|Harbinger]] 11:22, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Indeed, it says that I, as a liberal (one who loves God and tries to mirror the compassion for people that he showed whilst here on earth) have little work ethic, personal responsibility, or common sense. I take issue with that proposition. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:18 23 May 2009 (PDT)

: You have free will to take issue with 2+2=4 also. The fact remains that liberals favor higher taxes (which not "compassionate") and donate less to charity than conservatives. Indeed, liberals recently attempted to reduce the tax deduction for giving to charity, which speaks volumes about how they really feel about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:47, 23 May 2009 (EDT)

== Additional Liberal Organizations ==
Center for Democracy & Technology, a civil liberties group that filed briefs against the law Child Online Protection Act and is working in coordination with the ACLU. {{unsigned|Jpatt}}

:Two more--Brookings Institute and Fairness In Accuracy & Media --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:25, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

::Also Research for Change, Emily's List, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Human Rights Campaign, People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals, Planned Parenthood, Creative Commons, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Democracy For America, and ActBlue! --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:31, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Be aware that some liberal organizations, in an attempt to hide their agenda, will tout themselves as "Progressive" organizations instead. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 08:35, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Another: Center For American Progress --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 11:21, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

The more I think about it, probably need a whole page dedicated to Liberal Organizations. They can be sorted and divided by Soros funded / abortion sponsors / environmental / innocuous named (e.g. Democracy For America) / gay support / union backed / progressive advocates / Conservative watchdogs. Your thoughts?--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 12:29, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

: Hmmmm, the more you think about it you've come to that conclusion? Well, it's such a good conclusion, I came up with it yesterday and asked Mr. Schlafly about it [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Aschlafly#Liberal_Organizations here]! Although I believe a different organizational system is worthwhile. Hey, if you keep checking my contributions, you may find some other ideas that you can "think about" and claim as your own. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 14:57, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:: Darn, if I only stalked jareds posts I would have realized that I was beaten by liberal intelligence. Let me guess your suggestion 'different organizational system' - hmmm, watered down to alphabetical and by state. If there becomes a Liberal Organizational page, it will need to be a tool for people to know what organizations to stay away from and why they are for boycott.--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 19:45, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

::: Hmmm, I was actually thinking about organizing it by media, topic type, purported purpose. But take my idea and let's collaborate. That was the point of my post the other day, which you buried when you were insulting me. Let's collaborate and put something together. Obviously I had a good idea that you also like, so instead of continuing to insult me, let's make something out of it. --[[User:Jareddr|Jareddr]] 21:01, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

:::: I'll just do my own work, you edit, like always. I have no desire to collaborate with you. Sorry. The most you 'll get from me is a prayer that your heart changes--[[User:Jpatt|jp]] 22:07, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Founding Fathers were liberal==
For their time at least. And you can't deny this. All of their rallying cries were liberal for their day. "No taxation without representation." Liberal. No authoritarian autocrats, wow that's very liberal considering the day. Freedom of religion, and religion seperated fom state? Why, those are some of the very things some of you hate "liberals" for to begin with.

Point is, "liberal" is just a word. But some of the less sociable and not so well adjusted conservatives *gasp, they exist* have used the same silly word games with "liberal" as they did when they coined that lovely little phrase "pro-life." Actually it's quite clever. Now liberal is, supposedly, perjorative along he same lines that anyone not "pro-life" must be "pro-death." And how horrible is that, pro-death? Exactly...

What ever happened to moderation =( Middle of the road is not so bad, folks. There's something to be had from either end of the spectrum. Extremism is never the best choice. Self profesed "conservatives" are as guilty of it as self profesed "liberals." The problem, unfortunately, is relly with all of us in general. It's just in our nature to prefer the radicals over the moderates. It's more exciting to us, and none of us are above it. However, we can actively be aware of that and make a point not to fall in lock step with the radicals on either end. And in truth, many do. They are just quiet, it's always th fringes that are the loudest... [[User:Jros83|Jros83]] 13:55, 24 August 2008 (EDT) (I'm goig to be blasted as one of those "liberals" lol...)

==List at top==

The list at the top makes it clear that it's supposed to be strictly a list of things liberals support, almost a "liberal platform", if you will. Why are there "studies" like this: "In 2005, it was reported by CBS News that liberals were the most likely supporters of the theory of evolution. Support for the theory of evolution which is a key component of atheistic ideologies in the Western World." Why can't we just say "secularism and atheism"?

Or this: "Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)." Just seems gossipy, and not really representative of a whole, but rather some particular instances with which someone has taken issue. I'm all for being honest about what they're trying to do, and I'm just saying this information should be placed where it deserves to go. Does this merit a new section to place this info in, or does anyone think there's a better place on the article to put this? [[User:PCarson|PCarson]] 13:49, 1 October 2008 (EDT)

==See Also==
Would like to add Liberal education. --[[Image:50 star flag.png|14px]] [[User:Jpatt|jp]] 21:10, 2 October 2008 (EDT)

==Clean up article==
Can someone tell me how to edit the main page? The list of liberals in the see also section is a bit long so I created another page to place them located [[List of liberalism in America|here]]. Thank you.--[[User:JasonM|JasonM]] 21:39, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
:The page is locked so nobody can edit except for sysops. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 13:58, 6 October 2008 (EDT)

== Recent changes ==

In the list of ideologies there is a missing line break in the line "A "living Constitution" that is reinterpreted as liberals prefer, rather than how it was intended* Government programs to rehabilitate criminals". This should be two lines.

Also, the wording on the sex ed line needs to be tweaked. As it is, it reads like liberals actually want to teach people to be promiscuous, which isn't true. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 21:58, 8 October 2008 (EDT)

:The new definition is... circular. And there's still a typo (mentioned above). [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 20:26, 10 October 2008 (EDT)
::Perhaps the word you're looking for is [[tautology]]? "A liberal is someone who denies any harm caused by liberal ideology" - this doesn't actually tell the reader anything about what a 'liberal' is, except that the author clearly doesn't like them. And I'm disappointed to see that the 'brain of a Democrat' cartoon has returned to such prominent placement too - it's unencyclopaedic, to say the least (although I did laugh at the "anti-bellum"). [[User:Underscoreb|Underscoreb]] 00:05, 13 October 2008 (EDT)
:::I hate to sound like a bother, but could anyone address these comments? (Anyone with the capability to edit the article, that is) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 22:50, 17 October 2008 (EDT)
:::: That better? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:00, 18 October 2008 (EDT)
:::::It's not bad, actually. I'd rather have a more textbook defintion, but I'm pretty satisfied. Thanks Philip :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 11:57, 18 October 2008 (EDT)

==Obama: Professor?==
''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)''

*Obama has described himself as a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> He held the position of Lecturer, an adjunct position, from 1992 to 1996.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> He held the position of Senior Lecturer from 1996 until his election to the senate in 2004.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, has suggested that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. <ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> The University states that Senior Lecturers are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure track.<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref>

* ''"I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution," Obama told an audience at a campaign fundraiser. ... Responding to Obama's comments, Dan Ronayne, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said, "Senator Obama needs to understand that at this level words matter and he will be scrutinized." Ronayne pointed that Obama was only a senior lecturer and not a full professor. The University of Chicago lists him as a senior lecturer on leave.''<ref>[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/03/30/politics/p132303D74.DTL&type=politics]</ref> So in this reference, an AP story in the San Francisco Chronicle, we have evidence that Obama has indeed called himself a law professor, and a quote from an RNC spokesman claiming he was not entitled to do so.

* University of Chicago's ''Statement Regarding Barack Obama''<ref>[http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html]</ref> states: ''The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.'' It seems that he was an adjunct from '92 to '96, but after that, as a Senior Lecturer, he was considered a professor.

* Next, let's look at a news article on UChicago's site from '04. It uses the title of Senior Lecturer to describe Obama, which confirms that he was indeed at that time a Senior Lecturer. <ref>[http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/04/041103.obama.shtml]</ref>

All of the references seem to agree that Obama was a Senior Lecturer, and that he was not full-time. The RNC spokesman said that Obama was "only a Senior Lecturer and not a full professor", but this is contradicted by the university itself; UofC said "Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track". I think this makes a pretty strong case for Obama having been entitled to use the title "professor" to describe at least the latter part of his time teaching at UofC.

Therefore, I suggest that the sentence ''Calling anyone they agree with a "professor" regardless of whether he earned that distinction based on a real peer review of his work (see, e.g., Richard Dawkins and Barack Obama)'' be changed to remove Obama's name.

== Suggestions: ==
The Liberal Party of Canada should also be in the "See also" section of the page. Nothing more Liberal than a party that declares itself so. [[User:Conservatores|Conservatores]] 15:04, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

<references/>
==Liberal Arts==
I wanted to remove 'liberal arts' and 'liberal arts college' from the list, but apparently I can't. Those terms have nothing to do with liberalism. --[[User:Commodore Guff|KevinS]] 20:46, 19 December 2008 (EST)

: Good suggestion. I removed them.--[[User:Aschlafly|aschlafly]] 20:51, 19 December 2008 (EST)

==Absolutely correct definition...but :-)==
:''A liberal is a person who's views reject traditional and biblical standards in favour of subjective or relative standards.''
This definition is absolutely correct. Not sure if it captures the possible fact that some liberal thinkers appear to hold these views based on the problems of their time instead of merely asserting their wills. Is there not a significant difference between [[Liberal Christianity#Origins of liberal Christianity|these 19th century Christian liberals]] and say 19th century atheistic liberals such as [[Karl Marx]] and [[Ludwig Feuerbach]] and their 20th century couterparts [[Mao Zedong]] and [[Joseph Stalin]]? --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:10, 27 December 2008 (EST)
:I wouldn't call them Liberals. Liberals are the disguised [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] of overt Communists. [[User:Bugler|Bugler]] 10:14, 27 December 2008 (EST)
::Until World War II most Christian liberals tended to be [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]], thinking it would bring the fullfilment of the [[Kingdom of God]]. [[Reinhold Niebuhr]] is a good example. He expressed pro-Marx views and didn't denounce Stalin until he signed a pact with Hitler in 1939. After that Neibuhr became radically anti-communist. Neverthless, few liberal Christians follow Niebuhr in his renunciation and instead hold on to these obviously false and desctrutive [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]] notions. So today I think most liberal Christians are like the young Niebuhr unaware of the evils lurking within communist thought. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 10:26, 27 December 2008 (EST)
:::On the other hand, most of today's self-proclaimed political liberal Christians (if they give a hoot at all about [[God]], [[Jesus]], or Scripture is unknown) like [[Hillary Clinton]] and [[Barack Hussein Obama]] appear to more into [[Liberal Fascism]] than [[Fellow traveller|fellow-travellers]]. Not that one of these evils is better than another. Just different. Sigh. Probably should just ignore this liberal evil stuff altogether. --[[User:RickD|RickD]] 11:00, 27 December 2008 (EST)

== The philosophy of Liberalism ==

We definitely need a section on the actual meaning of a liberal viewpoint in political philosophy. The definition of 'liberal' in this article in fact broadly refers to the ideology of the Democrats, who are moderate socialists. The Republicans in fact espouse significantly liberal economic views and significantly conservative social views. Therefore, we need clarification that, outside of American politics, true liberalism is 'promoting freedom', something I believe that the conservatism you refer to advocates.--unsigned dark night

:Maybe at one time liberalism meant promoting freedom, but not today's liberals. Today's liberals look to stay neutral in foreign conflicts, stay away from the promotion of freedom. In America, they are for taking away freedoms (e.g. fairness doctrine, House rules barring minority party representation, etc.) --[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 18:29, 14 January 2009 (EST)

::That may be so, but only by your definition of liberalism. Todays liberals are in fact socialists - , so we should probably attempt to clarify that, in real American government, liberals espouse these flawed policies, whereas in political philosophy, matters are very different.

:No, today's liberals are not in fact socialists, liberalism refers to belief near the center of the political spectrum, with conservatives to their right, and socialists to their left. The assertions in this page that liberals reject logic and the bible are arbitrary and biased, two things that I thought conservapedia was founded against. The idea that liberals are simply those opposed to certain beliefs and opinions held by a majority of those that call themselves conservatives is a sweeping, generalizing statement. A misleading statement is a form of [[deceit]]. [[User:Apr28|Apr28]] 4:52 23 May 2009 (PDT)

:: Today liberals support taxpayer-funded [[abortion]] and demand [[censorship]] of [[classroom prayer]], plus all the other positions on the list. There is nothing "near the center" about the liberal positions. The [[deceit]] is when liberals deny what they do believe and support.

== Free Market ==

I've always thought a defining quality of a Liberal was a lack of faith in a free market to solve problems. Conservatives tend to believe an economic problem is best solved in the market, whereas Liberals tend to want government intervention. [[User:NotALiberal|NotALiberal]] 23:40, 31 January 2009 (EST)

==Suggestion==
The text currently reads ''There are no coherent liberal standards, and often a liberal is merely someone who uses many words to say nothing.'' I would suggest that this might read 'There are no coherent liberal standards that are distinct from socialism or communism, and often a liberal is... ' [[User:MauriceB|MauriceB]] 17:04, 1 February 2009 (EST)

== If you want anyone to take you seriously... ==

Then you should get rid of this satirical cartoon and replace it with a more appropriate picture. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --[[User:Yorpa|Yorpa]] 09:40, 15 February 2009 (EST)

== Problems With the Article ==

''a liberal is merely someone who craves attention''
 Erm... there's just a little problem with what you're saying here. I don't think that this is factually correct, especially considering the fact that Conservatives are just as vocal about their opinions as Liberals are. Perhaps we could consider removing this phrase as it makes the entire article sound ridiculously biased. I know that it is meant to be anti-Liberal, but could we please steer away from what sounds like a petty insult? It makes it sound like vandalism.

There are a few other bits throughout the article which make it sound like whoever wrote the article didn't know what they were talking about/were trying desperately to elongate or pad out the article, eg ''Some argue that liberals typically support economic policy similar to that of fascism''. Liberalism and fascism are polar opposites, one pushing for equality, freedom of choice and help for the poor, the other pushing for a superior race of people, a forced way of living and murdering the poor. I propose that this statement could be amended or removed, especially seeing as it says ''some argue'' rather than ''most'' or ''a significant number of the scientific community/economic experts''. We should not base arguments on what one or two people think - that is not reliable information. [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 09:51, 16 February 2009 (EST)

:I also have a criticism of the article: the See also section is too long, and contains many pages that are also linked in the navigation bar immediately below it. Perhaps the page could be unlocked so that those with improvements to make can make them?
:Ululator, I know this page is opposed to liberals, but I don't think anyone's accusing them of wanting to 'murder the poor'!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 09:54, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: (edit conflict) Ululator, you need to open your mind more. On average, liberals are more vocal and aggressive than conservatives. There's no denying that. Just look at what happened to Harvard President Larry Summers.

: As to economic policy, both liberals and fascists favor greater state control.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 09:56, 16 February 2009 (EST)

You cannot try to link two groups based solely on the fact that both hold similar economic policies, otherwise you can clearly link Reaganomics with medieval policies....the solution to our problems is to concentrate the wealth of a nation in the hands of the already wealthy and powerful?

Liberals and fascists do both want greater state control, but then again, so do dictatorships and many other political viewholders. However, you cannot possibly argue that they want state control in the same way. Liberals seek equality. Fascists seek superiority. I don't think there are two more different views. I also disagree that liberals are more vocal and aggressive. I have personally been attacked, both verbally and physically, on a number of occasions by conservatives, for being gay/disabled/pro choice and I know of many other people, including high profile people who have also been attacked.[[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:10, 16 February 2009 (EST)

: Ululator, there's no denying that liberals are more aggressive in expressing and enforcing their views on others. You're not going to fool anyone here by claiming otherwise. Address my specific example (one of many) or move on. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 10:20, 16 February 2009 (EST)

I know little about Larry Summers' situation, so I would feel unable to comment on this example, since all I know about it is hear-say that came from this website. I personally feel that conservatives and liberals are equally vocal and aggressive in their views, since on each side there are those who are loud, and those who are quiet. I am more inclined to remember loud conservatives, and no doubt you are more inclined to remember loud liberals. Therefore it is pointless us pointing the finger at each other. I know in my heart that J-sus preached acceptance and love, so I will end this debate here, before it descends into a petty argument. You may think on this though: liberalism is all about accepting others for who they are, loving them and respecting their choices. Surely this is what J-sus wanted? [[User:Ululator|Ululator]] 10:29, 16 February 2009 (EST)

== Application ==

The description on this page doesn't really apply to many of the Liberals I'm friends with... they're generally anti-censorship, pro-military, patriotic individuals. Some of them I know are charitable in nature. Isn't it a bit of a generalisation? -- Dollfuss

*No. Only a European, or someone living outside the United States might believe that. This is an American encyclopedia, and the view of the vast majority of American liberals, is decidedly anti-military, and unpatriotic. Furthermore, liberals in the United States contribute to charity at a rate of less than half as conservatives do. We do not attempt, at Conservapedia, to be no point of view. We present facts, and if that offends certain people's political ideas, so be it. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:01, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

:Right. We're talking about American liberals specifically in this article. [[User:AddisonDM|AddisonDM]] 21:29, 4 April 2009 (EDT)

== Question about the article ==

In the first line "A liberal is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards", how can someone who rejects the bible still not be logical? The bible is founded on faith - not logic. Please change this back to traditional instead of logical, as the article is locked. [[User:JamesY|JamesY]] 20:02, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

*Wrong. The Bible is the word of God. We accept what it says because of ''Faith''. Liberals don't have faith, nor much logic. --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 21:13, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

:James, you've been misled in your education. The Bible is the most logical book written. People have a free will to reject logic, and reject that 2 and 2 are 4, but that doesn't change the logical truth of it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:03, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::Andy Schlafly, would you do me the honor of explaining why the Bible is the most logical book written? [[User:ShmuelB|ShmuelB]] 22:58, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: God created the world, and then man. Man incurred the ultimate offense against God, and that required the ultimate sacrifice to redeem it. God intervenes with miracles from time to time as He likes. This ''is'' completely logical. Now everyone has free will to reject this and conjure up any alternative theory they like, but Christianity is the most logical religion and the Bible is the most logical book.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:30, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

::: As an example of the illogical view of [[atheists]], they deny the existence of [[Hell]]. If anything is logical, it is justice, and Hell is essential to that.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:33, 8 April 2009 (EDT)

Well it's possible to embrace Biblical and logical standards and still remain liberal. Take for example a liberal who is for gun control, and thinks the way he does because Jesus taught us to "Turn the other cheek". {{Unsigned| AmmaAm}}

:Spoken like a true liberal and atheist, AmmaAm. "Turning the other cheek" has absolutely nothing to do with guns, or allowing criminals to abuse you, or your family. I urge you to read many of our good articles on Christianity and Jesus Christ. You will find the truth, and it will indeed set you free! --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 16:12, 27 April 2009 (EDT)

I still don't see how Christianity is the most logical religion, or how the fact that God creating the world and man could warrant complete logic. You noted that a logical point of view is to consider that with justice comes punishment (in this particular case, hell). This is a logical way of thinking because we understand that the components work together. We can describe what justice means and understand the its essentials include the punishment of the offender. The fact that God created the earth and everything on it "because he can" doesn't logically explain the components that are required for a God to be able to exist and to be able to perform what has been claimed. Nobody today has a first hand account of the events Christianity describe, so nobody can say for certain that it happened. I can claim that my grandfather told me of a giant alien that his father told him created and rule the earth many hundreds of years ago. I could provide letters and painting of the event that could easily be fake, but just as easily be real, and insist that it happened. People can choose not to believe me and believe in christianity instead, but can't I just claim my teachings to be the most logical? {{unsigned|Texico11}}
:Your logic is that proof is required. We don't need proof for God's existence. Wisdom of Christianity is passed on to other generations. Today's generation claims to be the smartest that ever lived, I beg to differ. Relativists can claim whatever and make truth whatever they want it to be. It doesn't mean that it is true.--[[User:Jpatt|Jpatt]] 19:16, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

:Texico11, you find no ''logical'' flaw in Christianity. There is none. You may choose to disbelieve that Jesus rose from the dead, but there is nothing illogical about that Christian statement.

:Try to construct another explanation of the world and you will find it has logical flaws. If you prefer logic, then Christianity is the religion for you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:38, 12 May 2009 (EDT)

So the Muslims and the Hindus and all the other religions that exist are not as logically sound as Christianity? Because the millions that follow these teachings would beg to differ and claim as many logical flaws in Christian teachings. The perception of there own religion as being flawless is just as strong as the word of somebody who believes Christianity is. I prefer logic over anything and swing with whatever theories present the most logic and and hold the most evidence, and while I personally believe that Christianity is the most sound of all the religions in its logic I don't believe that all its teachings are 100% flawless.--[[User:Texico11|Texico11]] 16:23, 13 May 2009