Talk:U.S. History Textbook Project
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aschlafly (talk | contribs) at 22:19, June 12, 2008. It may differ significantly from current revision.
I read Churchill's 'The Great Republic' when I was in college. Highly reccomend it as something of a 'conservative' viewpoint.
However, stick to the textbooks for examinations. Textbooks merely provide facts in a dry form. You are pulling at straws if you can find any sort of Liberal bias in them. TBarret 10:05, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
Not to seem rude, but this whole "[insert item here] has a Liberal bias!" Is getting a little bit absurd. Now, I really can understand some of the things people are accusing of having "bias" (Media Outlets primarily) But now this whole "textbook conspiracy" seems a little bit absurd to me.--ITSAMEMARIO 22:03, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
- Oh right - the media has liberal bias but somehow textbooks do not. What's their secret??? Perhaps you're next going to tell us that Wikipedia does not have any bias either.--Aschlafly 22:31, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
- "The media has a liberal bias." How is it that an entity such as "the media" -- assuming that we can talk about it as an undifferentiated lump, which is problematic in itself -- would have an institutional bias that ran contrary to the interests of the people who own most of the outlets that make up what we think of as "the media?" Television networks and stations, radio networks and stations, magazines, newspapers, movie studios, record companies and in the context of this little article, book publishers are all - and over the last decade, decade and a half, increasingly so - owned by fewer and fewer large companies that are completely imbricated in corporate structures. Why - and more importantly how - would the corporate elites who own the media spend billions and billions of dollars to put out a "liberal" message that allegedly embraces a "party line" that would lead to their own loss of wealth and power? AliceBG 22:42, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
- Well, I have read America: Pathways to the Present and I didn't personally didn't see any bias in it. But, tell me what part(s) of it are biased, and if I can see where you are coming from then I will gladly admit I am wrong. --ITSAMEMARIO 17:56, 12 June 2008 (EDT)
- "The media has a liberal bias." How is it that an entity such as "the media" -- assuming that we can talk about it as an undifferentiated lump, which is problematic in itself -- would have an institutional bias that ran contrary to the interests of the people who own most of the outlets that make up what we think of as "the media?" Television networks and stations, radio networks and stations, magazines, newspapers, movie studios, record companies and in the context of this little article, book publishers are all - and over the last decade, decade and a half, increasingly so - owned by fewer and fewer large companies that are completely imbricated in corporate structures. Why - and more importantly how - would the corporate elites who own the media spend billions and billions of dollars to put out a "liberal" message that allegedly embraces a "party line" that would lead to their own loss of wealth and power? AliceBG 22:42, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
- The person at the Hudson Institute said it is biased, and had many examples that I think we link to. I'm not that familiar with the Hudson Institute but I think it has a reputation for being impartial.--Aschlafly 18:19, 12 June 2008 (EDT)