Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Liberal bias

2016-08-05T21:55:55Z

Redraider: The folly of media bias

== 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. --[[User:KeithJoseph|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. [http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/pollindex.htm] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk: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. [http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/withdraw/2007/0906summarybbcpoll.htm]

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.--[[User:Elamdri|Elamdri]] 22:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd go for some citations, too. And some fries. :D [[User:Aziraphale|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) [[User:Momoka|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> --[[User:Sid 3050|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 [[Conservative]]s amongst us know what to watch out for.
::[[User:JC|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. --[[User:Ed Poor|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]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|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. [[User:Dpbsmith|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 [http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php | politicians.]+--[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 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. --[[User:Scott|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. [[User:Wikinterpreter|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.[[User:Toggiba|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. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk: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? --[[User:Scott|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. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk: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.
:::::[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 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 moveon.org for them! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::I don't get embarrassed , only enlightened, [http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php | here] is my source. I defer to your expertise. Thank you for your kind attention to my little additions around here. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

:::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? --[[User:Scott|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. --[[User:Scott|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. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

*That site must need some kind of Liberal password, cause it won't resolve for me..... :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:00, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::Try it now. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
::Ouch! --[[User:Scott|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. --[[User:Scott|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. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== The [[BBC]] ==

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. [http://eddriscoll.com/archives/cat_oh_that_liberal_media.php] --[[User:Ed Poor|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.--[[User:Theseus|Theseus]] 22:16, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== TK? ==

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

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

*Just checking to see how many keyholes you're peeping into. :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk: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. --[[User:Gulik2|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. [[User:Dilbert|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 [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:03, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:It looks very suspicious. It should be removed because of the circumstances you just described. [[User:Bohdan|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 Amazon.com. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk: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. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:52, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

*Ahh! Wasn't a valid link anyway! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk: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 [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments 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). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 21:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:huh? [[User:RobS|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 [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments CP Commandments #2 and #5], as well as the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:Editing_etiquette 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. [[User:Jazzman831|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? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Uh, yeah, as long as it follows the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments#_note-1 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" ;-) [[User:Jazzman831|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? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 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. [[User:DanH|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? [[User:Kazumaru|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 :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:22, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
::: You make [[liberalism]] sound less like [[evil]] than some others here. [[User:Kazumaru|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]]. [[User:Robs|Rob Smith]] 20:42, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::"Just let the Americans handle it" worked well too, until the Abu Ghraib pictures were leaked. [[User:Kazumaru|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]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 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? [[User:RobS|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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method#External_criticism:_authenticity_and_provenance 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? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:47, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

:* Haven't a clue what any of that has to do with deceit, though... [[User:Kazumaru|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 [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070809222839.jzdcwmy8&show_article=1], you may want to consider adding that information to this article.--[[User:Tash|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? [[User:PhilLynott|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. [[User:RobS|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. [[User:RobS|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. --[[User:Tash|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! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 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. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
*Nixon said several times he was profoundly influenced by his Mother's values and thoughts....--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

== Example 17 ==

Chamberlain was a Conservative; the last Liberal PM was Lloyd George (1916-22). (Source: http://www.annualreport.gov.uk/output/Page123.asp) [[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 10:18, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

:No, you see, he's an unpopular figure so he becomes a liberal by default. [[User:Fuzzy901|Fuzzy901]] 14:45, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

::Right. Let's call it "liberalism in reverse." [[User:RobS|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. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 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. [[User:RobS|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. [[User:Order|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 [[Lenin]]ist style [[united front]]s. 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. [[User:RobS|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. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:19, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

*That better? At this hour, it's about the best I can manage. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:42, 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. [[User:Order|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.--[[User:KeithJoseph|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) [[User:ATang|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.

== Uncyclopedia ==

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! '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 15:40, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

== 'Liberalism' ==

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! {{unsigned|Celtish}} 13:09, 14 September 2007

*Yes, Celtish! The true mark of Socialism, it is. You are invited to improve our article on the [[BBC]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:31, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Okay [[User:Celtish|celtish]] 21:38, 14 September 2007 (EDT) Done [[User:Celtish|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. [[User:RobS|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. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 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. [[User:Celtish|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. --[[User:DinsdaleP|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 --[[User:Lorana|Lorana]] 13:51, 27 November 2008 (EST)

*I love how liberals insist that the truth, or anything they don't agree with is bias. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/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.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 01:39, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

==Pervasiveness==

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." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk: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." [[User:RJJensen|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. --[[User:DeanS|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 [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/10/breaking-news-j.html LA TIMES on Edwards affair]. [[User:RJJensen|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.'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:37, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

::I agree, TK, but we can describe the political viewpoints of those who:
::#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)
::#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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk: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 --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 03:32, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

Talk:Liberal bias

2016-08-05T21:47:50Z

Redraider: Address false claim of reliability.

== 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. --[[User:KeithJoseph|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. [http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/pollindex.htm] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk: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. [http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/withdraw/2007/0906summarybbcpoll.htm]

== What is ...? ==

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

I'd go for some citations, too. And some fries. :D [[User:Aziraphale|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) [[User:Momoka|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> --[[User:Sid 3050|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 [[Conservative]]s amongst us know what to watch out for.
::[[User:JC|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. --[[User:Ed Poor|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]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|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. [[User:Dpbsmith|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 [http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php | politicians.]+--[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 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. --[[User:Scott|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. [[User:Wikinterpreter|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.[[User:Toggiba|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. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk: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? --[[User:Scott|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. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk: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.
:::::[[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]] 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 moveon.org for them! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 00:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::I don't get embarrassed , only enlightened, [http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/47530.php | here] is my source. I defer to your expertise. Thank you for your kind attention to my little additions around here. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

:::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? --[[User:Scott|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. --[[User:Scott|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. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]

*That site must need some kind of Liberal password, cause it won't resolve for me..... :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 02:00, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
::Try it now. [[User:Rob Pommer| Cracker]][[User_talk:Rob_Pommer|talk]]
::Ouch! --[[User:Scott|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. --[[User:Scott|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. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 03:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== The [[BBC]] ==

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. [http://eddriscoll.com/archives/cat_oh_that_liberal_media.php] --[[User:Ed Poor|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.--[[User:Theseus|Theseus]] 22:16, 2 July 2007 (EDT)

== TK? ==

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

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

*Just checking to see how many keyholes you're peeping into. :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk: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. --[[User:Gulik2|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. [[User:Dilbert|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 [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:03, 18 July 2007 (EDT)
:It looks very suspicious. It should be removed because of the circumstances you just described. [[User:Bohdan|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 Amazon.com. --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk: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. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 17:52, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

*Ahh! Wasn't a valid link anyway! --[[User:TK|Sysop-TK]] [[User_talk: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 [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments 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). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 21:29, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
:huh? [[User:RobS|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 [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments CP Commandments #2 and #5], as well as the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Help:Editing_etiquette 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. [[User:Jazzman831|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? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 23:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
::::Uh, yeah, as long as it follows the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Commandments#_note-1 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" ;-) [[User:Jazzman831|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? --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 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. [[User:DanH|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? [[User:Kazumaru|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 :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 20:22, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
::: You make [[liberalism]] sound less like [[evil]] than some others here. [[User:Kazumaru|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]]. [[User:Robs|Rob Smith]] 20:42, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
:::::"Just let the Americans handle it" worked well too, until the Abu Ghraib pictures were leaked. [[User:Kazumaru|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]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 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? [[User:RobS|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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method#External_criticism:_authenticity_and_provenance 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? [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 15:47, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

:* Haven't a clue what any of that has to do with deceit, though... [[User:Kazumaru|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 [http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070809222839.jzdcwmy8&show_article=1], you may want to consider adding that information to this article.--[[User:Tash|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? [[User:PhilLynott|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. [[User:RobS|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. [[User:RobS|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. --[[User:Tash|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! --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 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. [[User:RobS|Rob Smith]] 13:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)
*Nixon said several times he was profoundly influenced by his Mother's values and thoughts....--[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 18:21, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

== Example 17 ==

Chamberlain was a Conservative; the last Liberal PM was Lloyd George (1916-22). (Source: http://www.annualreport.gov.uk/output/Page123.asp) [[User:G7mzh|G7mzh]] 10:18, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

:No, you see, he's an unpopular figure so he becomes a liberal by default. [[User:Fuzzy901|Fuzzy901]] 14:45, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

::Right. Let's call it "liberalism in reverse." [[User:RobS|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. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 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. [[User:RobS|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. [[User:Order|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 [[Lenin]]ist style [[united front]]s. 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. [[User:RobS|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. [[User:Order|Order]] 02:19, 20 August 2007 (EDT)

*That better? At this hour, it's about the best I can manage. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 03:42, 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. [[User:Order|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.--[[User:KeithJoseph|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) [[User:ATang|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.

== Uncyclopedia ==

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! '''Scorpion'''[[User_Talk:Scorpion|Vote for Pedro]] 15:40, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

== 'Liberalism' ==

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! {{unsigned|Celtish}} 13:09, 14 September 2007

*Yes, Celtish! The true mark of Socialism, it is. You are invited to improve our article on the [[BBC]]. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 16:31, 14 September 2007 (EDT)

Okay [[User:Celtish|celtish]] 21:38, 14 September 2007 (EDT) Done [[User:Celtish|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. [[User:RobS|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. --[[User:TK|şŷŝôρ-₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|Ṣρёаќǃ]] 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. [[User:Celtish|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. --[[User:DinsdaleP|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 --[[User:Lorana|Lorana]] 13:51, 27 November 2008 (EST)

*I love how liberals insist that the truth, or anything they don't agree with is bias. --[[User:TK|₮K]][[User_Talk:TK|/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.[[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 01:39, 18 May 2009 (EDT)

==Pervasiveness==

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." --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk: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." [[User:RJJensen|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. --[[User:DeanS|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 [http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2007/10/breaking-news-j.html LA TIMES on Edwards affair]. [[User:RJJensen|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.'' --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 22:37, 19 May 2009 (EDT)

::I agree, TK, but we can describe the political viewpoints of those who:
::#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)
::#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. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk: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 --[[User:TK|'''₮K''']]/Admin[[User_Talk:TK|/Talk]] 03:32, 21 May 2009 (EDT)

Template talk:Examples of Liberal Bias

2016-08-05T20:52:58Z

Redraider: Added phrase I am referring to.

Isn't this a bit adolescent? It basically says "I hate liberals." [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 12:09, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:And when I say "I hate white people", does that make me adolescent. [[User:Chmorguphaste|Chmorguphaste]] 12:12, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
In addition to being a bigot, yes. Why do you ask? [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 12:13, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:DKips, nowhere does Mr. Schlafly say that he hates liberals. Their stances and their tactics perhaps, but there's always hope that the people themselves might be saved. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:25, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Hey, we all love liberals here...but you wouldn't want your sister to marry one. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:27, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

: Maestro, thanks for reminding me of another favorite liberal tactic: draw an analogy to racism, particularly when no logical argument will help. I'll add that now. Lighten up a bit, too: there's nothing wrong with observing style. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

This reminds me of [[Godwin's law]]. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:36, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

''pretending to know more than he does''
:Do you know this for a fact?

''resistance to quantifying things''
:Have you data to prove this, in a quantifiable manner?

''Claim that science supports their position''
:This is an excellent opportunity for you to use science to quantitatively demonstrate that you are not, in fact, pretending to know more than you do. I have a little training in the social sciences; I will be happy to review your essay for you, once you develop it beyond this outline.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 23:57, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
:: One only need look at how liberals promote Evolution, Global Warming, and other bogus theories to realize that they try to deceive people with fake science. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 01:16, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
::: SSchultz, a good many liberals have faith, so your idea that "they" might be "saved" is a bit presumptive to say the least. Further, I don't pretend to know the "truth" about things like global warming or evolution only that the issues are complex and the evidence conflicted- dismissing them as bogus out of hand seems silly and intellectually lazy. As for the rest of the essay, because of the monthilic view it takes of liberalism and the broad strokes of purple crayon used to connect the dots, as it were, it reads like the rants of a disgruntled teenager. As it stands it is decidely anti-intellectual. 10:33, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Well, you're wrong about the "rants of a disgruntled teenager," and wrong about the remainder of your comments also. You also misspelled several basic words, raising further doubts about your own intellectual commitment as you complain about someone else being "anti-intellectual". You may not pretend to know the truth about global warming or evolution, but many other [[liberals]] do pretend to know AND they insist on teaching their peculiar views in [[public school]] against the wishes of parents and most taxpayers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:06, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
::: Snarky and deflective observations about spelling errors aside, simply pronouncing my views as wrong is unconvincing at best; I could [and do] as easily say the same about your views. Your essay is really nothing more than a rant. I judge your claims as wholly unsupported and your replies unfocused and unresponsive. I'd advise you to rework the whole thing if you wish to persuade anyone other than yourself. As it stands, you've earned an "F." This will never do. [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 13:10, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
::::We're not here to please you as a liberal. This is a conservative site and this essay is great. Your liberal POV will just give us additional material to use on this site and in this article. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:42, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

==Sources==
I'd love to see some sources for these, um, properties, but I doubt that will ever happen without a lot of revert wars and page blocks. However, I think the newest source ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Deletion_Policy&rcid=279869 here]) seems to be in error. CP's (blank) deletion policy? Not sure what that has to do with hate speech. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 13:32, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

: Don't follow you, Jazzman. Are you speaking in code? Pick out one of the style items that you dispute and identify it here, and I'll track down a cite for you or delete it. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:44, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::What's the burden of proof on an essay page? Is it subject to the Commandments? If it is not, then I don't think any of the statements should be removed (though I doubt many of them are accurate, on the whole). I guess I forgot that this was an essay page when I complained about the lack of sources. Statement retracted :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:Jazzman, Look at http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Undelete/Conservapedia_talk:Deletion_Policy. The page history has "New page: American Taliban You site is nothing but a Democratic hate site". Accusing Conservapedia or other conservative authors of being a hateful is another liberal style. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:50, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::Crocoite, when I click on that link all I see is a page that says "The action you have requested is limited to users in the group "Sysops"." When I click on the link within the article, I get a page that says "There is currently no text in this page, you can search for this page title in other pages or edit this page" and there is no page history. Am I doing something wrong?

:::No, I don't think you're doing anything wrong. I'm a sysop and I forgot you wouldn't be able to look at that link. I did extract part of that page for you to see where the user put "You site is nothing but a Democratic hate site". See how this user accuses Conservapedia of hate speech? --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:33, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::Even if the link did work, though, how would that show liberal style? Does the author of that statement claim to be a liberal? How do you know his claim is credible? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::: The above user and several other liberals on this site and all over the internet accuse Conservatives of "hate speech" just for expressing our conservative freedom of speech. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:33, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Meh, I'm not sure I'd agree that it's a great example of liberals accusing conservatives of hate speech, but I'm not really bothered by it, since it's an essay. I understand the reference now, though, thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 19:38, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

== Out of curiosity... ==

Are self-proclaimed Liberals allowed to look at this article and question the idea that this applies to every Liberal? Or should such people, like myself, just kinda sit back here and laugh at it? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:28, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

: You have free will and can laugh at anything that you can persuade yourself to be funny. No one is claiming that *all* liberals exhibit the same style, or even that *any* liberals exhibit all the style points listed. But people who share common beliefs, as [[liberals]] do, tend to exhibit some similar traits in terms of style. Not a big deal, and not something to take offense at. Denying any commonality in style would be more laughable, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::So it's more of a joke than a serious essay? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:10, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::: How does your conclusion follow from what I said? Maybe you're being facetious at this point. I was clear that [[liberals]], like any group that shares common beliefs, share some similar characteristics of style also. It shouldn't offend anyone to list some of those characteristics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::::It's a joke but he doesn't know it. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]] 14:54, 15 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike

== Liberal style? ==

Mr. Schlafly, I have a few issues with some of your "liberal characteristics", specifically that it seems like you yourself exhibit many of them in your discussions/debates. Here are a few of the examples that I have found:

2. Pretending to know more than he does.

example: In your discussion of the Kevorkian speaker article on the main talk page you say "Those many liberals probably received fees ten (10) times greater what the few conservatives received in fees." You have absolutely know justification for this statement.

5. Insistence on having the last word in a discussion or debate.

example: I, as well as many others, have noticed that you frequently end discussion of debate topics by accusing whoever you are debating with of being a liberal and refusing to continue the discussion at all.

7. Over-reliance on accusations of hypocrisy.

example: See the article on "Liberal hypocrisy".

9. Insistence on censoring certain speech.

example: Just look at the large number of people who have been blocked (which might end up including me unfortunately) for holding opposing viewpoints.

15. Claim that science supports their position, and ignore any evidence that shows their science to be flawed.

example: See conservapedia articles and debates on evolution, young earth creationism, etc. Nearly all arguments for young earth creationist ideas contain the phrase "young earth creationists assert" without providing any sort of evidence or support.

So I was wondering what your response to all of this is. Do I have a point or am I missing something? And for the record (and in anticipation of your response) no I am not a liberal, so please do not stoop to calling me one like it is an insult or as if it somehow makes your point for you. I simply feel that if you are going to criticize liberals for these characteristics you should first make sure that you yourself do not engage in any of the same practices. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 14:19, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for the comments. I just added a new point in the article to describe liberals such as yourself who deny they are liberal hoping that it will bolster their weak arguments somehow.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:48, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Where in the response given by OHannity can it be concluded that he is a liberal? --[[User:TheGoodSociety|Joe]] 15:19, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

: BillOhannity has provided reason to make this addition to the list:

:: liberals often argue in non sequiturs

: Not one of his arguments disproves or even tends to disprove the points he references.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:54, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

::I believe his point was that conservatives also show these traits, not that liberals ''don't'' show these traits. If a liberal and a conservative have the same style, then it's not "liberal style," it's just "arguing style". (Just in case it gets pulled in later, as it often seems to, I am hereby officially denying I am a liberal). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 21:05, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

::Yes that was exactly my point, I'm glad someone actually read what I wrote. I wasn't trying to disprove anything, so I guess it only makes sense that "not one of his arguments disproves or tends to disprove the points he references." --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 14:16, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Bill, I found something else you can add to your list: #1 (calling free speech hate speech) is also practised by conservatives, as evidenced [[Liberal Hate Speech|here]]. This list is looking more and more like it should be renamed. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 19:21, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I don't understand your comment, Jazzman. Is someone on equating the ''institution'' of [[free speech]] with the ''practice'' of [[hate speech]], i.e., saying that all free speech is hate speech?

Or are you objecting to ''any'' denunciation of a remark as "hate speech", when that remark is protected by the principle of [[free speech]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:51, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

:Huh? This article claims that the liberal style (or liberal bias... I don't know everything keeps moving around!) includes "calling conservative free speech "hate" speech". We have an article calling liberal free speech "hate" speech, do we not? If this is not the case then this article (template, whatever) or the [[liberal hate speech]] article needs to be clarified, because I don't see a difference between the two claims. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:47, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

==Its just funny==

I mean, people have so far pointed out the damning hypocrisy in this 'article', but so far its all being deemed as Liberal nonsense. Well, I am a Liberal and I find this article ridiculously hypocritical, and have noticed similar debating tactics among conservatives on this site. IN fact, this should be regarded as 'idiot's style', as idiots on both sides of the spectrum employ tactics like these mentioned. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 08:26, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Of course you would call it hypocritical. That's because you refuse to accept the authority that Conservatives based their comments on, which the vast majority of their comments rely on. Conservatives use authoritative sources such as the Constitution or the Bible, where liberals say things based on nothing but their opinion as the authority. That is the difference.

== Crocoite - Civility? ==

I note that we're [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|not allowed]] to "bully, ridicule (make fun of) or attack (denigrate) Conservapedia or other users, and their opinions" on our user/talk pages, but it is okay to do so in encyclopedic articles? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 09:44, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Heh, don't worry about it. I'm just one big example of [[Liberal]] [[Deceit]].

Some of these guys genuinely don't know how much they seem to pardoy themselves. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 09:55, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

In fact, any of the last few discussions I've had with him he has ended prematurely. What he had said basically amounted to 'Your a Liberal and Liberals don't have an ability to logically deduct' or something along them lines. Anyway, its all innane. Crocite basically took all I said out of context, though I am flattered to be included in this. What he doesn't realise is that he himself uses many of the debate tactics listed in this. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:01, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:Wow, I totally have to go over some of your recent discussions with him later on. Looking over the list, I can see your point - many items on this list are being used by some of the "top contributors" here, it seems. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:07, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

You know that there is a very strong possibility we could be banned for having this discussion? Blocking here is arbitrary, at the whim of a certain admin you may or may not have irritated. Perhaps we should stop mentioning it and look to less controversial articles. Although discussion is the best antidote to the insanity of articles like this, Liberal Hypocrisy, Mc Carthyism, Liberal Intellectualism etc. perhaps it would be best to concentrate on less controversial articles and on the articles which don't make conservapedia seem like a parody of itself. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:10, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:I agree, although I have trouble finding articles that I can contribute significantly to and which are uncontroversial enough. But I have asked a fair share of uncomfortable questions in the past few days, so I figure I better get a few edits under my belt to save my reputation... see you around then, I guess/hope? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:21, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Sure thing buddy [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:42, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

== Athiests? ==

Are all atheists Liberals? [[User:Tubesock|Tubesock]] 13:55, 11 November 2007 (EST)

: No, of course not. Not all smokers get lung cancer, and not everyone in jail committed a crime. But the vast majority of atheists are [[liberals]], particularly on social issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Citation needed
::thats not a real response to the question, as that is a bad relationship-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:06, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

== Protected ==

I just wanted to add that Liberals deny that God created the Earth and everything in it in six days.
[[User:WKirkwood|WKirkwood]] 17:30, 6 January 2008 (EST)
:no, athiests deny that, not liberals-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Dude, it's spelled "atheists" ("i" after "e", except after "c" ...). And, by the way, most [[liberals]] do deny that the God created the world in six days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:50, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:::"Science" proved that wrong, Andy. pun intended +_+ always tired [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 23:30, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

== Confused ==
Ignoring, for a second, the content of the article itself... Why is this a plate? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:04, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Content ==
"# calling conservative humor "unprofessional and meaningless, and degrades the quality of your encyclopedia." [3]" Hooray for grammar!

"# overreliance on hearsay, such as the false claim that most support evolution" vs "insistence on censoring certain speech, such as a description of The Flood or even teaching children about a massive flood, despite its acceptance by a majority of Americans"

"selectively citing the Bible when convenient, even though they hold much of it in disdain." Because we can never quote the Bible. Ever. 'cause that's wrong. We're infidels.

And finally, #42: Identity is the colour of one's skin. I love you guys. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:10, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Sooo.... ==

Is it safe to assume that these are supposed to be things that '''only''' Liberals do, or can Conservatives occasionalyl do them, as well? --[[User:RJest|RJest]] 17:51, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Neville Chamberlain Was A Conservative ==

Can someone please fix? Thx. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:05, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:Prove he was a conservative first. Thx. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:06, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== "...a description of The Flood or even teaching children about a massive flood, despite its acceptance by a majority of Americans" ==

as my mother - a very wise woman -once said, "just because a lot of people think something, doesn't make it right. Would you jump off a bridge if everyone else thought it was a good idea?" What is the relationship, in this case between the alleged "massive flood" and what a majority of Americans (the same majority that believe in UFOs and a living Elvis, perhaps?) think? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:18, 24 February 2008 (EST)

: No one is claiming that majority opinion makes something right. But when something is right and supported by majority opinion, and liberals censor it anyway, then it is a double outrage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 24 February 2008 (EST)

==Point four... The new one.==
Because no Conservative has ever done anything destructive. ''Ever.'' [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:32, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Deletion suggestion ==

That nothing links to a page is not justification for deleting it. People may find it by searching for it in the "FIND" box.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:38, 6 March 2008 (EST)

==Controversial==
[[Iconoclastic controversy]], [[Global Warming Controversy]], [[Creation-evolution controversy]], [[Muhammad cartoons controversy]], [[Abortion controversy]], [[Easter controversy]], [[Intelligent design controversy]], [[Video game controversy]]. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:11, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

== Grammer ==

shouldn't the first letter of every sentence be capitalized and I was wondering if those external links could be changed to referenced??? Just trying to help. respond to me on my talk page. --[[User:AmeliaJ|AmeliaJ]] 17:37, 28 December 2008 (EST)

== Missing ref tags ==

I would make the change myself if I could; Point #8: "Silence Speaks Volume" has a few links next to it that do not have ref tags. Point #31 has ref tags, why not point #8? Thanks to whoever fixes this. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 01:44, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

== Better word than "unjustified", use "unsubstantiated" instead. ==

Concerning: "#unjustified claims of expertise, authority or knowledge"

A better word instead of "unjustified" is "unsubstantiated" there.

Template talk:Examples of Liberal Bias

2016-08-05T20:51:35Z

Redraider: /* Better word than "unjustified", use "unsubstantiated" instead. */ new section

Isn't this a bit adolescent? It basically says "I hate liberals." [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 12:09, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:And when I say "I hate white people", does that make me adolescent. [[User:Chmorguphaste|Chmorguphaste]] 12:12, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
In addition to being a bigot, yes. Why do you ask? [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 12:13, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

:DKips, nowhere does Mr. Schlafly say that he hates liberals. Their stances and their tactics perhaps, but there's always hope that the people themselves might be saved. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 23:25, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

Hey, we all love liberals here...but you wouldn't want your sister to marry one. [[User:Maestro|Maestro]] 23:27, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

: Maestro, thanks for reminding me of another favorite liberal tactic: draw an analogy to racism, particularly when no logical argument will help. I'll add that now. Lighten up a bit, too: there's nothing wrong with observing style. Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:33, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

This reminds me of [[Godwin's law]]. [[User:DanH|DanH]] 23:36, 27 July 2007 (EDT)

''pretending to know more than he does''
:Do you know this for a fact?

''resistance to quantifying things''
:Have you data to prove this, in a quantifiable manner?

''Claim that science supports their position''
:This is an excellent opportunity for you to use science to quantitatively demonstrate that you are not, in fact, pretending to know more than you do. I have a little training in the social sciences; I will be happy to review your essay for you, once you develop it beyond this outline.--[[User:All Fish Welcome|All Fish Welcome]] 23:57, 27 July 2007 (EDT)
:: One only need look at how liberals promote Evolution, Global Warming, and other bogus theories to realize that they try to deceive people with fake science. [[User:SSchultz|SSchultz]] 01:16, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
::: SSchultz, a good many liberals have faith, so your idea that "they" might be "saved" is a bit presumptive to say the least. Further, I don't pretend to know the "truth" about things like global warming or evolution only that the issues are complex and the evidence conflicted- dismissing them as bogus out of hand seems silly and intellectually lazy. As for the rest of the essay, because of the monthilic view it takes of liberalism and the broad strokes of purple crayon used to connect the dots, as it were, it reads like the rants of a disgruntled teenager. As it stands it is decidely anti-intellectual. 10:33, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

:: Well, you're wrong about the "rants of a disgruntled teenager," and wrong about the remainder of your comments also. You also misspelled several basic words, raising further doubts about your own intellectual commitment as you complain about someone else being "anti-intellectual". You may not pretend to know the truth about global warming or evolution, but many other [[liberals]] do pretend to know AND they insist on teaching their peculiar views in [[public school]] against the wishes of parents and most taxpayers.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 11:06, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
::: Snarky and deflective observations about spelling errors aside, simply pronouncing my views as wrong is unconvincing at best; I could [and do] as easily say the same about your views. Your essay is really nothing more than a rant. I judge your claims as wholly unsupported and your replies unfocused and unresponsive. I'd advise you to rework the whole thing if you wish to persuade anyone other than yourself. As it stands, you've earned an "F." This will never do. [[User:Dkips|Dkips]] 13:10, 28 July 2007 (EDT)
::::We're not here to please you as a liberal. This is a conservative site and this essay is great. Your liberal POV will just give us additional material to use on this site and in this article. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:42, 28 July 2007 (EDT)

==Sources==
I'd love to see some sources for these, um, properties, but I doubt that will ever happen without a lot of revert wars and page blocks. However, I think the newest source ([http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia_talk:Deletion_Policy&rcid=279869 here]) seems to be in error. CP's (blank) deletion policy? Not sure what that has to do with hate speech. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 13:32, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

: Don't follow you, Jazzman. Are you speaking in code? Pick out one of the style items that you dispute and identify it here, and I'll track down a cite for you or delete it. In Christ,--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:44, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::What's the burden of proof on an essay page? Is it subject to the Commandments? If it is not, then I don't think any of the statements should be removed (though I doubt many of them are accurate, on the whole). I guess I forgot that this was an essay page when I complained about the lack of sources. Statement retracted :) [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

:Jazzman, Look at http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Undelete/Conservapedia_talk:Deletion_Policy. The page history has "New page: American Taliban You site is nothing but a Democratic hate site". Accusing Conservapedia or other conservative authors of being a hateful is another liberal style. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 13:50, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::Crocoite, when I click on that link all I see is a page that says "The action you have requested is limited to users in the group "Sysops"." When I click on the link within the article, I get a page that says "There is currently no text in this page, you can search for this page title in other pages or edit this page" and there is no page history. Am I doing something wrong?

:::No, I don't think you're doing anything wrong. I'm a sysop and I forgot you wouldn't be able to look at that link. I did extract part of that page for you to see where the user put "You site is nothing but a Democratic hate site". See how this user accuses Conservapedia of hate speech? --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:33, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::Even if the link did work, though, how would that show liberal style? Does the author of that statement claim to be a liberal? How do you know his claim is credible? [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 14:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::: The above user and several other liberals on this site and all over the internet accuse Conservatives of "hate speech" just for expressing our conservative freedom of speech. --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 14:33, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

::::Meh, I'm not sure I'd agree that it's a great example of liberals accusing conservatives of hate speech, but I'm not really bothered by it, since it's an essay. I understand the reference now, though, thanks. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 19:38, 5 August 2007 (EDT)

== Out of curiosity... ==

Are self-proclaimed Liberals allowed to look at this article and question the idea that this applies to every Liberal? Or should such people, like myself, just kinda sit back here and laugh at it? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 23:28, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

: You have free will and can laugh at anything that you can persuade yourself to be funny. No one is claiming that *all* liberals exhibit the same style, or even that *any* liberals exhibit all the style points listed. But people who share common beliefs, as [[liberals]] do, tend to exhibit some similar traits in terms of style. Not a big deal, and not something to take offense at. Denying any commonality in style would be more laughable, I think.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:05, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::So it's more of a joke than a serious essay? [[User:Kazumaru|Kazumaru]] 00:10, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::: How does your conclusion follow from what I said? Maybe you're being facetious at this point. I was clear that [[liberals]], like any group that shares common beliefs, share some similar characteristics of style also. It shouldn't offend anyone to list some of those characteristics.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:32, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

::::It's a joke but he doesn't know it. [[User:Wismike|Wismike]] 14:54, 15 August 2007 (EDT)Wismike

== Liberal style? ==

Mr. Schlafly, I have a few issues with some of your "liberal characteristics", specifically that it seems like you yourself exhibit many of them in your discussions/debates. Here are a few of the examples that I have found:

2. Pretending to know more than he does.

example: In your discussion of the Kevorkian speaker article on the main talk page you say "Those many liberals probably received fees ten (10) times greater what the few conservatives received in fees." You have absolutely know justification for this statement.

5. Insistence on having the last word in a discussion or debate.

example: I, as well as many others, have noticed that you frequently end discussion of debate topics by accusing whoever you are debating with of being a liberal and refusing to continue the discussion at all.

7. Over-reliance on accusations of hypocrisy.

example: See the article on "Liberal hypocrisy".

9. Insistence on censoring certain speech.

example: Just look at the large number of people who have been blocked (which might end up including me unfortunately) for holding opposing viewpoints.

15. Claim that science supports their position, and ignore any evidence that shows their science to be flawed.

example: See conservapedia articles and debates on evolution, young earth creationism, etc. Nearly all arguments for young earth creationist ideas contain the phrase "young earth creationists assert" without providing any sort of evidence or support.

So I was wondering what your response to all of this is. Do I have a point or am I missing something? And for the record (and in anticipation of your response) no I am not a liberal, so please do not stoop to calling me one like it is an insult or as if it somehow makes your point for you. I simply feel that if you are going to criticize liberals for these characteristics you should first make sure that you yourself do not engage in any of the same practices. --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 14:19, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks for the comments. I just added a new point in the article to describe liberals such as yourself who deny they are liberal hoping that it will bolster their weak arguments somehow.--[[User:Conservateur|Conservateur]] 14:48, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

Where in the response given by OHannity can it be concluded that he is a liberal? --[[User:TheGoodSociety|Joe]] 15:19, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

: BillOhannity has provided reason to make this addition to the list:

:: liberals often argue in non sequiturs

: Not one of his arguments disproves or even tends to disprove the points he references.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 15:54, 15 August 2007 (EDT)

::I believe his point was that conservatives also show these traits, not that liberals ''don't'' show these traits. If a liberal and a conservative have the same style, then it's not "liberal style," it's just "arguing style". (Just in case it gets pulled in later, as it often seems to, I am hereby officially denying I am a liberal). [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 21:05, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

::Yes that was exactly my point, I'm glad someone actually read what I wrote. I wasn't trying to disprove anything, so I guess it only makes sense that "not one of his arguments disproves or tends to disprove the points he references." --[[User:BillOhannity|BillOhannity]] 14:16, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

:::Bill, I found something else you can add to your list: #1 (calling free speech hate speech) is also practised by conservatives, as evidenced [[Liberal Hate Speech|here]]. This list is looking more and more like it should be renamed. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 19:21, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

I don't understand your comment, Jazzman. Is someone on equating the ''institution'' of [[free speech]] with the ''practice'' of [[hate speech]], i.e., saying that all free speech is hate speech?

Or are you objecting to ''any'' denunciation of a remark as "hate speech", when that remark is protected by the principle of [[free speech]]? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 19:51, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

:Huh? This article claims that the liberal style (or liberal bias... I don't know everything keeps moving around!) includes "calling conservative free speech "hate" speech". We have an article calling liberal free speech "hate" speech, do we not? If this is not the case then this article (template, whatever) or the [[liberal hate speech]] article needs to be clarified, because I don't see a difference between the two claims. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazzman831]] 18:47, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

==Its just funny==

I mean, people have so far pointed out the damning hypocrisy in this 'article', but so far its all being deemed as Liberal nonsense. Well, I am a Liberal and I find this article ridiculously hypocritical, and have noticed similar debating tactics among conservatives on this site. IN fact, this should be regarded as 'idiot's style', as idiots on both sides of the spectrum employ tactics like these mentioned. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 08:26, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Of course you would call it hypocritical. That's because you refuse to accept the authority that Conservatives based their comments on, which the vast majority of their comments rely on. Conservatives use authoritative sources such as the Constitution or the Bible, where liberals say things based on nothing but their opinion as the authority. That is the difference.

== Crocoite - Civility? ==

I note that we're [[Conservapedia:Guidelines|not allowed]] to "bully, ridicule (make fun of) or attack (denigrate) Conservapedia or other users, and their opinions" on our user/talk pages, but it is okay to do so in encyclopedic articles? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 09:44, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Heh, don't worry about it. I'm just one big example of [[Liberal]] [[Deceit]].

Some of these guys genuinely don't know how much they seem to pardoy themselves. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 09:55, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

In fact, any of the last few discussions I've had with him he has ended prematurely. What he had said basically amounted to 'Your a Liberal and Liberals don't have an ability to logically deduct' or something along them lines. Anyway, its all innane. Crocite basically took all I said out of context, though I am flattered to be included in this. What he doesn't realise is that he himself uses many of the debate tactics listed in this. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:01, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:Wow, I totally have to go over some of your recent discussions with him later on. Looking over the list, I can see your point - many items on this list are being used by some of the "top contributors" here, it seems. --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:07, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

You know that there is a very strong possibility we could be banned for having this discussion? Blocking here is arbitrary, at the whim of a certain admin you may or may not have irritated. Perhaps we should stop mentioning it and look to less controversial articles. Although discussion is the best antidote to the insanity of articles like this, Liberal Hypocrisy, Mc Carthyism, Liberal Intellectualism etc. perhaps it would be best to concentrate on less controversial articles and on the articles which don't make conservapedia seem like a parody of itself. [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:10, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

:I agree, although I have trouble finding articles that I can contribute significantly to and which are uncontroversial enough. But I have asked a fair share of uncomfortable questions in the past few days, so I figure I better get a few edits under my belt to save my reputation... see you around then, I guess/hope? --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 10:21, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

Sure thing buddy [[User:Graham|Graham]] 10:42, 23 September 2007 (EDT)

== Athiests? ==

Are all atheists Liberals? [[User:Tubesock|Tubesock]] 13:55, 11 November 2007 (EST)

: No, of course not. Not all smokers get lung cancer, and not everyone in jail committed a crime. But the vast majority of atheists are [[liberals]], particularly on social issues.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 14:13, 11 November 2007 (EST)

Citation needed
::thats not a real response to the question, as that is a bad relationship-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:06, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

== Protected ==

I just wanted to add that Liberals deny that God created the Earth and everything in it in six days.
[[User:WKirkwood|WKirkwood]] 17:30, 6 January 2008 (EST)
:no, athiests deny that, not liberals-[[User:Greenmeanie|Greenmeanie]] 01:05, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

:: Dude, it's spelled "atheists" ("i" after "e", except after "c" ...). And, by the way, most [[liberals]] do deny that the God created the world in six days.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 09:50, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
:::"Science" proved that wrong, Andy. pun intended +_+ always tired [[User:Kektklik|Kektk]] 23:30, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

== Confused ==
Ignoring, for a second, the content of the article itself... Why is this a plate? [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:04, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Content ==
"# calling conservative humor "unprofessional and meaningless, and degrades the quality of your encyclopedia." [3]" Hooray for grammar!

"# overreliance on hearsay, such as the false claim that most support evolution" vs "insistence on censoring certain speech, such as a description of The Flood or even teaching children about a massive flood, despite its acceptance by a majority of Americans"

"selectively citing the Bible when convenient, even though they hold much of it in disdain." Because we can never quote the Bible. Ever. 'cause that's wrong. We're infidels.

And finally, #42: Identity is the colour of one's skin. I love you guys. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 13:10, 23 January 2008 (EST)

== Sooo.... ==

Is it safe to assume that these are supposed to be things that '''only''' Liberals do, or can Conservatives occasionalyl do them, as well? --[[User:RJest|RJest]] 17:51, 16 February 2008 (EST)

== Neville Chamberlain Was A Conservative ==

Can someone please fix? Thx. [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:05, 24 February 2008 (EST)
:Prove he was a conservative first. Thx. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 23:06, 24 February 2008 (EST)

== "...a description of The Flood or even teaching children about a massive flood, despite its acceptance by a majority of Americans" ==

as my mother - a very wise woman -once said, "just because a lot of people think something, doesn't make it right. Would you jump off a bridge if everyone else thought it was a good idea?" What is the relationship, in this case between the alleged "massive flood" and what a majority of Americans (the same majority that believe in UFOs and a living Elvis, perhaps?) think? [[User:Aboganza|Aboganza]] 23:18, 24 February 2008 (EST)

: No one is claiming that majority opinion makes something right. But when something is right and supported by majority opinion, and liberals censor it anyway, then it is a double outrage.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:26, 24 February 2008 (EST)

==Point four... The new one.==
Because no Conservative has ever done anything destructive. ''Ever.'' [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 21:32, 6 March 2008 (EST)

== Deletion suggestion ==

That nothing links to a page is not justification for deleting it. People may find it by searching for it in the "FIND" box.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:38, 6 March 2008 (EST)

==Controversial==
[[Iconoclastic controversy]], [[Global Warming Controversy]], [[Creation-evolution controversy]], [[Muhammad cartoons controversy]], [[Abortion controversy]], [[Easter controversy]], [[Intelligent design controversy]], [[Video game controversy]]. [[User:DannyRedful|DannyRedful]] 16:11, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

== Grammer ==

shouldn't the first letter of every sentence be capitalized and I was wondering if those external links could be changed to referenced??? Just trying to help. respond to me on my talk page. --[[User:AmeliaJ|AmeliaJ]] 17:37, 28 December 2008 (EST)

== Missing ref tags ==

I would make the change myself if I could; Point #8: "Silence Speaks Volume" has a few links next to it that do not have ref tags. Point #31 has ref tags, why not point #8? Thanks to whoever fixes this. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 01:44, 28 September 2011 (EDT)

== Better word than "unjustified", use "unsubstantiated" instead. ==

A better word instead of "unjustified" is "unsubstantiated" there.

Template talk:Examples of Liberal Bias

2016-08-05T20:49:10Z

Redraider: False claim of hypocrisy.

Liberal bias

2016-08-05T20:26:57Z

Redraider: All studies are disputed to some degree, so why have "(disputed" before the word "study" in the Bias in Education section

'''Liberal bias''' is partisan selection or distortion of information to support [[liberal]] policies. This bias can be expressed by [[professor values|professors]] and [[public school]] teachers, [[College Board]] exams, reporters and other journalists in mainstream media, and any other information source. Typically purveyors of liberal bias falsely present themselves as being objective. Liberal bias includes techniques such as distorted selection of information, [[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 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, [[conservative]]s typically uphold freedom of ideological expression, with many expressing that although they may oppose a liberal view with every fiber 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.)

==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.
<blockquote>
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. 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>
</blockquote>

Jon Meacham, editor of the overly liberal weekly magazine, ''Newsweek'', in justifying its activist journalism, stated, “Let me say this, I don’t think we’re the only catcher in the rye between democracy and ignorance, but I think we’re one of them, and I don’t think there are that many standing on the edge of that cliff.”<ref>http://www.commentarymagazine.com/printarticle.cfm/press-man--don-t-give-readers-what-they-want-15488</ref>

In March 2010, liberal [[evolution]]ary magazine the ''National Geographic'', postulated that [[liberals]] and [[atheists]] may be more evolved than [[conservatives]], according to conclusions by Satoshi Kanazawa, an evolutionary psychologist. Kanazawa states "people with higher levels of intelligence are more likely to adopt social values and behaviors that are relatively new to human life—liberalism, atheism, staying up late, and (for men) monogamy, for example." Kanazawa also defines ''liberalism'', in part, as caring about the well-being of vast numbers of people you'll never meet, and states that this "is a very new thing for humans."

However, in response it is argued that such an definition of liberalism would render [[Jesus Christ]] a liberal, who clearly taught "love thy neighbor as thyself", and who came to be the Savior of the world - to those who believe and so follow Him - and which obedience is contrary to what liberalism promotes. And that, in contrast to Biblical conservative morality, history shows that liberalism, as overall manifest today, has adopted such "new" but essentially old ways of rebellion against beneficial moral values, promoting [[Hollywood values]], [[San Francisco values]], adultery, anarchy, and atrocities such as are seen by such intelligent atheists as [[Mao]] and [[Pol Pot]], whose objectively baseless moral reasoning allowed them to justify their evils, as pragmatically reasonable to achieving their "enlightened" ideals.

In a response to the ''National Geographic'' pretensions, James Lewis in the ''American Thinker'' notes that the vast majority of "educated people before the 20th century in Western countries were conservatives", but that "IQ doesn't predict street smarts or (obviously) political success on Capitol Hill".

Lewis goes on to ask,
<blockquote>
Why has the Left ended up killing 100 million people in the 20th century, according to French Marxist historian Courtois and his team? That's the real question the Left must always be made to answer: Why does its blind "idealism" and its unquenchable power-craving lead to such disastrous results, over and over again?
</blockquote>

His conclusions are that,
{{cquote|The National Geographic headline is therefore characteristically absurd, but it's also typical of the cultural Left today -- and of its hopeless cravings to validate itself as being smarter, better-educated, and of course, more compassionate than those conservative throwbacks to a brute past. Somehow the Left always needs to boast, and like any other compulsive boaster, it is compensating for its own feelings of inferiority...

High IQ is no guarantee of goodness. It's not even a guarantee of common sense, or of genuine intelligence outside a few limited parts of life. It's no protection against evil.
<ref>[http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/are_liberals_atheists_more_evo.html James Lewis, ''Are Liberals, Atheists More Evolved than Conservatives?''], American Thinker, March 14, 2010</ref>}}

Princeton Theological Seminary theologian and noted Bible commentator Albert Barnes (1798-1870) comments on [[Romans 1]]:22, ''Professing themselves to be wise they became fools'', that
<blockquote>
this was the common boast of the philosophers of antiquity. The very word by which they chose to be called, “philosophers,” means literally “lovers of wisdom.” That it was their boast that they were wise, is well known..[but] they became really foolish in their opinions and conduct.
</blockquote>

The famous Bible commentator, [[Matthew Henry]] adds, "As a profession of wisdom is an aggravation of folly, so a proud conceit of wisdom is the cause of a great deal of folly."

Ultimately, the function of the so-called liberal Press is to dig the grave for the American People and [[American Values]]. No mention need be made of the closely associated lying Marxist Press. To them the spreading of falsehood is as much a vital necessity as the mouse is to a cat. Their sole task is to break the national backbone of the people, thus preparing the nation to become the slaves of international finance and its masters, the Liberals.

== Liberal bias in media ==

=== History ===

==== Where does Liberal media bias come from? ====

Prior to the era of "objective journalism", many journalist and muckraker outlets alike were rather open and known for which side of the aisle that they stood. For example, both ''Harper's Weekly'' as well as the [[Los Angeles Times]] were considered to be [[Republican]] publications.<ref>[http://spartacus-educational.com/USAharpers.htm Harper's Weekly]</ref><ref>[http://ethics.journalism.wisc.edu/2011/04/20/the-fall-and-rise-of-partisan-journalism/ The Fall and Rise of Partisan Journalism]</ref> Other papers had a [[Democrat]] bent.<ref>[https://books.google.com/books?id=w2osAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA553&lpg=PA553&dq=albany+atlas+democrat Appleton's Cyclopædia of American Biography, Volume 1]</ref> During the partisan era, both sides had ample representation. There was no one sided media monopoly and the beliefs of the papers were known.

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

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

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

Lippmann opens his highly influential book ''Public Opinion'' with an anecdote about a small group of people on a distant island, and until a new copy of newspaper was brought in by ship the people on the island would continue their same arguments in perpetuity.<ref>Public Opinion, page 1.</ref> ''Public Opinion'' offers a rare glimpse inside the journalistic mind about the means and ability to manipulate readers to achieve a desired outcome.

Lippmann also called for journalism to be more closely associated with universities,<ref name=meaning /> with the end result that all journalists would be trained by left wing college professors. This ensures that journalism graduates would be of only one mindset.

=== Modern ===
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>

Billionaire ultra liberal [[atheist]] investor [[George Soros]], who spent $27 million trying to defeat President Bush in 2004, is a very substantial supporter of liberal media.<ref>http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/11/dont-hear-george-soros-ties-30-major-news-organizations/print</ref>

Liberals believe that most mainstream media sources do not have a bias towards liberal views, and that the idea of a "liberal media" is a myth fabricated by conservatives who are upset when reported facts do not support conservatives' opinions, beliefs, interests, or preconceived notions.

====Notable examples====

=====Liberals to Conservative Ratio=====
Talk to any Fox News hating-liberal and you'll here the same old regurgitated talking point- ''Fox is not Fair & Balanced.'' One network, Fox News has twice the number of opposing commentators than does all media sources combined. If you add up the major media properties; ABC, NBC, CBS, [[MSNBC]], [[CNN]], [[PBS]], New York Times, Washington Post, and Newsweek—you get a total of five so-called conservatives personalities among hundreds of liberals. At the least, Fox News employees the following liberals.

*[[Bob Beckel]]
*[[Juan Williams]]
*[[Alan Colmes]]
*[[Kirsten Powers]]
*[[Shepard Smith]]
*[[Geraldo Rivera]]
*[[Mara Liasson]]
*[[Bill Schulz]]
*[[Susan Estrich]]
*[[Ed Henry]]

=====Cuban revolution=====

Prime media sources as the New York Times believed and embraced [[Fidel Castro]], who used them in his propaganda to foster acceptance in the Western world.

In a letter to a revolutionary colleague in 1954, Fidel Castro is reported as stating, "We cannot for a second abandon propaganda. [[Propaganda]] is vital -- propaganda is the heart of all struggles."

Likewise, [[Che Guevara]], once labelled "Castro's brain," and who swore by [[Stalin]] and once boasted "I am all the contrary of a Christ (and who was an early role model for [[Christopher Hitchens]],<ref>Sean O'Hagan, ''Just a Pretty Face?,'' The Observer, July 11, 2004</ref>) "stated, "A foreign reporter -- preferably American -- was much more valuable to us at that time (1957) than any military victory. Much more valuable than rural recruits for our guerrilla force, were American media recruits to export our propaganda."<ref>Ernesto "Che" Guevara in his diaries</ref>

"Castro is honest," reported Newsweek magazine on April 13, 1959. "And an honest government is something unique in Cuba....Castro is not himself even remotely a Communist."

Herbert Matthews, of the New York Times reported, (July 1959) "This is not a Communist Revolution in any sense of the term. Fidel Castro is not only not a Communist, he is decidedly anti-Communist."<ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/10/when_fidel_castro_dictated_to.html</ref>

In an interview with [[Bill O'Reilly]] of Fox News, the atheist and liberal founder of CNN, [[Ted Turner]], denied that Fidel Castro's Stalinist regime ever killed anyone, as "that's never been proven." <ref>http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/ted_turners_lies_about_cuba.html</ref>

CNN, which was the first foreign media network to obtain a Havana bureau, promoted Cuba's Healthcare as model for the U.S. While it did mention accusations of serious problems, nearly all of the report was positive.<ref>http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20090808024640.aspx</ref>

=====Vietnam War=====
The [[Vietnam War]], in which America was the victor in military battles, is perhaps the most manifest modern example of how propaganda affected the outcome of a war, with much of the mainstream media being an all too willing instrument of such, especially CBS News with [[Walter Cronkite]].

In an exchange during one of his liaison trips to Hanoi, Colonel Harry G. Summers, Jr. told his North Vietnamese counterpart, Colonel Tu, "You know, you never beat us on the battlefield," Colonel Tu responded, "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant."<ref>On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War, Harry G. Summers</ref>

The Tet Offensive was portrayed by the New York liberal media as a defeat for the U.S., while in fact, it was an almost disastrous defeat for the North Vietnamese, as General Westmoreland and historians agree. The Viet Cong not only lost half of the 90,000 troops they had committed to battle, but it was virtually destroyed as an army.<ref>http://news-california.com/?p=700</ref>

British "Encounter" journalist Robert Elegant stated, <blockquote>
For the first time in modern history, the outcome of a war was determined not on the battlefield but on the printed page and television screens - never before Vietnam had the collective policy of the media sought, by graphic and unremitting distortion, the victory of the enemies of the correspondents own side.<ref>[http://www.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/Vietnam/Readings/elegant.htm How to Lose A War: The Press and Viet Nam]; Encounter (London), vol. LVII, No. 2, August 1981, pp. 73-90</ref>
</blockquote>

Some journalists have admitted that their reporting was decidedly biased, and had profound effects on history. West German correspondent Uwe Siemon-Netto confessed, "Having covered the Viet Nam war over a period of five years for West German publications, I am now haunted by the role we journalists have played over there." In relation to not reporting the true nature of the Hanoi regime and its actions resulting from the American withdrawal, he asked,

What prompted us to make our readers believe that the Communists, once in power in all of Viet Nam, would behave benignly? What made us, first and foremost Anthony Lewis, belittle warnings by U.S. officials that a Communist victory would result in a massacre?... Are we journalists not in part responsible for the death of the tens of thousands who drowned? And are we not in part responsible for the hostile reception accorded to those who survive?...However, the media have been rather coy; they have not declared that they played a key role in the conflict. They have not proudly trumpeted Hanoi's repeated expressions of gratitude to the mass media of the non-Communist world, although Hanoi has indeed affirmed that it could not have won "without the Western press."<ref name="ReferenceA">Uwe Siemon-Netto in the International Herald Tribune, reprinted in Encounter, October 1979</ref>

''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 name="KGB file 43173 vol. 2 v pp. 46-55">[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 single most explicit example of such biased reporting is typically seen to be the portrayal of the TET offensive, in which western media was charged with inspiring and aiding the propaganda war of the communists.

Truong Nhu Tang, a founder of the National Liberation Front, and a minister of justice for the Viet Cong Provisional Revolutionary Government - one of the most determined adversaries of the US during the war - stated years later,
<blockquote>
The Tet Offensive proved catastrophic to our plans. It is a major irony of the Vietnam War that our propaganda transformed this debacle into a brilliant victory. The truth was that Tet cost us half our forces. Our losses were so immense that we were unable to replace them with new recruits. (Truong Nhu Tang, The New York Review, October 21, 1982)
</blockquote>
In addition to Cronkite's biased reporting, FBI documents, obtained through a Freedom of Information Act by Yahoo news, evidence that legendary CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite collaborated with anti-Vietnam War activists in the 1960s, going so far as to offer advice on how to raise the public profile of protests and even promising that CBS News would rent a helicopter to take liberal Senator Edmund Muskie to and from the site of an anti-war rally.<ref>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts2067/print</ref>

==Liberal media outlets==

[[Image:Liberal Bias.png|none|500px]]
'''The following media outlets, described below, frequently display liberal bias:'''

* [[Associated Press]],
* [[CBS]] News,<ref>Townhall.com, [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MarvinOlasky/2001/12/04/enabling_media_bias Enabling media bias], Marvin Olasky, December 4, 2001.</ref>
* [[Los Angeles Times]] newspaper,
* [[MSNBC]] cable news,
* [[Newsweek]] Magazine
* [[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> newspaper,
* [[Public Broadcasting Service]]
=== Associated Press, The ===
In 2009, instead of pursuing major, unanswered questions such as: where the "stimulus" money was spent, the true nature of Obamacare's health care takeover costs, US Army Major Hasan's terror associations, the Associated Press assigned 11 people to fact check all 432 pages of Sarah Palin's book ''Going Rogue.'' While the objective of good political journalism is to hold all public figures accountable, the AP did no fact checking of books by liberal politicians appearing at the same time such those by [[Joseph Biden|Joe Biden,]] [[Barack Obama]], [[Hillary Clinton|Hillary]] and [[Bill Clinton]], and the late Senator [[Ted Kennedy]].<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/17/ap-turns-heads-devoting-reporters-palin-book-fact-check/ AP Turns Heads for Devoting 11 Reporters to Palin Book 'Fact Check', FoxNews, November 17, 2009]</ref>

===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 name="KGB file 43173 vol. 2 v pp. 46-55"/> 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 name="ReferenceA"/>

===Los Angeles Times, The===

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

===MSNBC===

While it is well known that MSNBC's [[Keith Olbermann]] is the most viciously liberal voice to host a news program within the mainstream media, he usually tones down his anti-conservative, anti-Republican vitriol when anchoring special events like election results. But during MSNBC’s coverage of the [[Massachusetts]] special Senate election, Olbermann's presentation was more rabidly partisan than if the Democratic National Committee itself were producing the show.<ref>[http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2010/20100120084741.aspx Olbermann Renews 'Teabagging' Attack on Scott Brown, Cuts His Victory Speech]</ref>

===New York Times, The===

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 Magazine===

Seen as perhaps the most liberal weekly news magazine, [[Newsweek]] merged in 2010 with the ultra-liberal Daily Beast, and often impugns 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>

===Public Broadcasting Service===

The taxpayer-funded Public Broadcasting Service 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.

===Other liberal biased outlets and media figures===

The following:

* [[ABC]] News,
* [[BBC]] News,
* Boston Globe Newspaper
* [[The Daily Show]],
* Daily Wrap news radio show, with Michael Castner,
* [[Guardian (UK)]], Manchester, ([[UK]] an avowedly socialist newspaper),
* [[NBC]] News,
* [[Moore, Michael]], documentary film maker,
* [[PZ Myers]], professor and blogger.
* [[Dan Rather]] former news anchor,<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>
* [[Real Time]] with [[Bill Maher]], and
* [[Washington Post]].

==Presidential coverage==

Many conservative and a few liberal commentators have remarked on the seeming extraordinary favor shown toward Barack Obama during his candidacy, and presidency.<ref>Dan Gainor, ''ONE YEAR LATER: Journalists' Love for Obama Still Going Strong'', FOXNews.com November 06, 2009</ref> 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>

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>

== Liberal media - apostles of atheism ==

''See also:'' [[Atheism and the media]] and [[Atheism and public relations]] and [[Atheism and politics]]

The Media Research Center released a study in 2008 reporting pro-[[atheism]] bias by major press outlets in the [[United States]].<ref name="youtube.com">[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTxORumTarg "Smoking gun proof that there is an atheist media bias"] (July 17, 2008). YouTube video, 2:56, posted by Atheism Sucks! Retrieved on July 25, 2014.</ref> The study found that 80% of mainstream media coverage of atheism was positive and that 71% of Christian-themed stories had an atheist counterpoint or were written from an atheist perspective.<ref name="youtube.com"/>

==Media bias in education==
[[Education]] in [[America]], especially at its higher levels, is typically seen by conservatives as promoting liberalism and helping to promote [[moral decline]]. A most egregious example is the continued use of ''A People's History of the United States'', by [[Howard Zinn]], which is a radical [[left-wing]] revision of history. Zinn explicitly stated that "objectivity is impossible and it is also undesirable", as he advocated and practiced making the writing of history a polemic for change.

Liberals are evidenced to make up a disproportionate amount of college faculty. A study showed that 50% of American college faculty identified themselves as [[Democrats]] and only 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 name="American Academic Study Survey 1999">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://www.bepress.com/forum/vol3/iss1/art2</ref><ref>http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/17963/liberal_bias_in_our_schools.html</ref> When they are in the faculty they then discriminate against the hiring of conservative professors.<ref>http://www.baylorpress.com/Book/235/Compromising_Scholarship.html</ref>

This Liberal Bias has even made its way to subjects that make up the very heart of America: [[The Constitution]], and [[Christianity]]. Their venerable age no longer protects them from being criticized in the light of modern exigencies. Moreover, in this view the first duty laid upon the State is to guarantee the economic well-being of the individual citizens. Hence it is judged from the practical standpoint and according to general principles based on the idea of economic returns. The chief representatives of this theory of the State are to be found among the average American socialist, especially our liberal Democrats.

Research on the political leanings of their university professors by members of The George Washington University Chapter of Young America’s Foundation (GWYAF) found substantial liberal bias in the academy. The school’s faculty gave 92 percent of their political donations ($221,490) to Democratic candidates versus only 8 percent ($20,500) to Republicans in the 2008 primary election. Consistent with this, in the presidential election the ratio was 91 percent to 9 percent.

Similarly, the ratio of Yale faculty donations in the 2004 presidential election between Kerry and Bush was 150:3. The ratio at Princeton was 114:1, and at Harvard, 406:13.<ref>http://www.academia.org/george-washington-slanted-here/</ref>

Law professor Richard D. Parker, after 35 years at [[Harvard University]], noted, “On this faculty, there are around 100 professors or assistant professors, and of that 100, I think you’d have to estimate there would be maybe eight registered Republicans." “I’m a registered Independent…and there’s no one else in the 100 who would identify as a populist.”<ref>http://www.academia.org/harvard-still-hates-america</ref>/

Textbooks used in schools of all ages have also been exposed as promoting a decidedly liberal bias against the nation of Israel.<ref>[http://www.academia.org/textbook-bias-against-israel]</ref> A landmark book called ''The Trouble with Textbooks'', by Dr. Gary A. Tobin and Dennis R. Ybarra described results of a comprehensive study they conducted of the 28 most widely used Social Studies textbooks in the United States. The researchers found that U.S. textbooks often contain "repeated misrepresentations that cross the line into bigotry.” Examples included Jesus being called a ''[[Palestinian]]'', Islam being "treated with a devotional tone in some textbooks, less detached and analytical than it ought to be. Muslim beliefs are described in several instances as fact, without any clear qualifier such as ''Muslims believe...''' The Islamic empire of the Middle Ages was presented as “a time of unqualified glory without blemishes”, while various aspects of the wars of Arab states against Israel were misrepresented.

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

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

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

==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, adamantly proclaimed that he would not publish reader's replies in the Globe's Letters to the Editor critical of homosexuality, erroneously equating such with racism:

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

"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>}}

==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 name="ReferenceB">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 name="ReferenceC">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 name="ReferenceC"/>
* 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 name="ReferenceB"/>
* 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 name="American Academic Study Survey 1999"/><ref>[http://montages.blogspot.com/2005/04/conservatives-underrepresented-in.html Conservatives: Underrepresented in Academia?]</ref>

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

=== American Television and bestiality ===

On August 6, 2008 [[LifeSiteNews]] reported:
{{cquote|The Parents Television Council released a new study, Happily Never After: How Hollywood Favors [[Adultery]] and [[Promiscuity]] Over Marital Intimacy on Prime Time Broadcast Television, which revealed that broadcast networks depict sex in the context of marriage as either non-existent or burdensome, while showing positive depictions of extra-marital or adulterous sexual relationships with alarming frequency....

According to the PTC study, some of the once-taboo-for-TV sexual behaviors that are now found on prime time television include threesomes, partner swapping, pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, and sex with prostitutes...

In 46 hours of programming, [[NBC]] contained only one reference to marital sex, but 11 references to non-marital sex and one reference to adultery were made.

References to incest, pedophilia, partner swapping, prostitution, threesomes, transsexuals/transvestites, [[bestiality]], and necrophilia combined outnumbered references to sex in marriage on NBC by a ratio of 27 to 1.<ref name="lifesitenews.com">[http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2008/aug/08080602 Study Finds TV Treats Marital Sex as Burdensome, Adultery as Positive]</ref>}}

== See also ==

*[[Credibility]]
*[[Anti-Defamation League]]
*[[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 Links]]
*[[Professor values]]
*[[Journalistic malpractice]]
*[[Anti-Conservative bias]]

{{Examples of liberal bias}}

==References==
{{Reflist}}

==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]]
[[Category:Anti Second Amendment]]