Liberal bias

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RobSmith (Talk | contribs) at 04:36, January 11, 2023. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
See also: Liberal media bias

Liberal bias is partisan selection or distortion of information to support liberal policies. This bias can be expressed by 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, bigotry, placement bias, photo bias and liberal style.

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, conservatives 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.)

It is clear that the mainstream media is extremely biased towards the left-wing, and this was the case since at least the 1960s, with a strong leftist monopoly on the news which promotes false conclusions.[1] In addition, the roots for the left-wing bias may have started as early as Walter Lippmann's book Public Opinion where he essentially advocated for fake news and that universities play a large role in the journalism industry. The 2016 election of Republican businessman Donald Trump prominently displayed the blatant leftist bias of the media.[1][2][3][4] Trump found a way to get his message out to the public without needing to go through the lens of the leftist media, and some liberals suggested ways in how to force Trump to have to deal with the corrupt media.[5]

Vision of the anointed

Economist Thomas Sowell, in his 1996 book The Vision of the Anointed, discusses the anointed vision of liberals and liberalism to promote their agenda.

Desperate evasions of discordant evidence, and the denigration and even demonizing of those presenting such evidence, are indicative of the high stakes in contemporary culture wars, which are not about alternative policies but 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.[6]

Roger Ailes, a GOP political operative who founded and led Fox News Channel, described the liberal media elite:

They just believe what they believe and they think their job is to drag the rest of the redneck morons toward the light. They don’t understand that the so-called redneck morons, the people they don’t like, are the people that grew up with values, patriotism, all those things. And they hate all those words.[7]

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.”[8]

In March 2010, liberal evolutionary magazine 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,

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?

His conclusions are that

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. [9]

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

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.

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


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.[10][11] Other papers had a Democrat bent.[12] 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,[13][14] was on the front lines of the development of so-called "objective journalism" around the 1920s.[15]

Lippmann wrote that you could use selective keywords[16] 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.[16]

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.[17] 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,[15] 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.

A strong liberal bias already existed by 1992, when only 7% of journalists voted for GOP nominee George H. W. Bush.[18]

Times v. Sullivan
See also: New York Times v. Sullivan

The landmark 1964 case involved an advertisement that was run in the The New York Times by supporters of the Reverend Martin Luther King. The police commissioner of Birmingham, Alabama, L.B. Sullivan, won a $500,000 libel judgment. It was overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States. Chief Justice William Brennan wrote in the opinion that public figures would have to prove that libel was not only untrue and defamatory, but also made with “with knowledge of its falsity or with reckless disregard of whether it was true or false.” The ruling essentially made it more difficult for public figures to sue for libel than private citizens.

In March 2021 D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence Silberman wrote in a dissent that he was “prompted to urge the overruling of New York Times v. Sullivan,” and that "Two of the three most influential papers, The New York Times and The Washington Post, are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets."[19] In one footnote, Judge Silberman likened the precedent on libel to the Brezhnev Doctrine, named after the Soviet party boss who proclaimed as Judge Silberman paraphrased it, “once a country has turned communist, it can never be allowed to go back.” Wrote Judge Silberman: “Apparently, maintaining a veneer of infallibility is more important than correcting fundamental missteps.”

Judge Silberman wrote that the Sullivan precedent has allowed the press “to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity.” The “increased power of the press,” he warned, “is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions” and poses a threat to a "viable democracy." He singled out the Washington Post, the 'New York Times, and National Public Radio.

The judge went on to accuse Silicon Valley and social media giants of helping perpetuate the liberal bias that is apparently so widespread in the news. Meanwhile, new conservative news networks that have launched in recent years have faced 'bans' or 'censorship' on social media, Silberman argued.

"After observing my colleagues' efforts to stretch the actual malice rule like a rubber band, I am prompted to urge the overruling of New York Times v. Sullivan. Justice Thomas has already persuasively demonstrated that New York Times was a policy-driven decision masquerading as constitutional law. As with the rest of the opinion, the actual malice requirement was simply cut from whole cloth. New York Times should be overruled on these grounds alone," Silberman said.


A 2005 report[20] 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.

"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."[21]

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.[22]

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.[23]

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. The media also creates hysteria over non-issues.[24]

Notable examples

  • A New York Times piece claimed Energy Secretary-designate Rick Perry had no idea a key purpose of the Department of Energy is to maintain US nuclear security. But Perry's statement on the day he was nominated says flatly he looks forward to "safeguarding our nuclear arsenal."[25]
  • There have been numerous times where both Republicans and Democrats have made the same or similar gaffes, but the media only focuses on, or criticizes, the gaffe when the Republican says it and uses that gaffe to try to discredit the Republican, while they whitewash and ignore the Democrat gaffe.[26]
  • The media uses mass shootings to push their agenda. When shootings occur, they call for gun control even to the point of repealing the Second Amendment, and it tried to blame pro-gun organizations such as the National Rifle Association even when failure to enforce existing regulations are at fault.[27] In 2018, CNN organized a Townhall on gun policy and filled the audience only with people strongly opposed to gun rights (rather than have them represent the U.S. population),[28] and it had those audience members ask scripted questions.[29][30]
  • The mainstream media frequently uses the label "conservative" – along with additional descriptors such as "predictable," "very," "deeply," and "staunch" – to describe conservative judicial nominees, while they do not use any of those labels when describing judicial nominees just as or even more left-wing.[31]
  • According to the Media Research Center in July 2018, the mainstream media took a negative stance on President Trump's immigration policies 92% of the time, and it gave migrants and illegals 120 times more airtime than victims of illegal migrant crime.[32][33]
  • Media Research Center has found that the mainstream media devotes significantly more time to covering political scandals involving Republicans compared to Democrats, even if the scandals involving Democrats are very similar.[34]
  • The liberal media tries so intensely to portray conservatives as "neo-Nazis" that they end up giving a large platform to the very small number of actual neo-Nazis in the U.S.[35]
  • The liberal media enjoys pointing out that certain right-wing populist parties in Europe had historical (though admittedly, not current) connections to "neo-Nazis", as weak those connections were, but it never points out the all social democratic parties had very strong historical connections to Marxism and communism.
  • The media enjoys searching for left-wing politicians from the South who they think can win in those states, and thus, in the entire country, and they end up writing glowing profiles of those candidates – even though nearly all of those candidates fail in the statewide elections, and those who win do it because of factors not inherent in their policies or character.[36]
  • NBC News anchor Chuck Todd announced he would not host anybody who did not accept human-caused climate change, labeling them as "deniers."[37][38]
  • In January 2019, the mainstream media, left-wingers, and many token conservatives rushed to judgment against a group of Catholic students wearing MAGA hats, claiming they harassed an American Indian activist when the activist actually harassed them in a publicity stunt.[39] The media engaged in character assassination and falsely smeared the students as "racists" and "bigots,"[40] while self-righteous pundits and liberal activists made racist[41][42] and nasty attacks against them[43] and they called for violence against them, all based solely on contrived and manipulated fake news opinion pieces disguised as "news" churned out by the liberal media to fit its narrative.[44] This was the fourth major media hoax in 2019.[45] The media also tried to use other hoax stories to smear Trump and his supporters,[46] and it frequently rushes to judgment.[47]
  • In January 2019, a Washington post reporter called Trump supporters "rubes" in an interview with a left-wing podcast.[48][49]
  • Media "fact-checking" has effectively become a way for it to push left-wing political views and criticize conservative viewpoints with a "veneer of impartiality."[50][51]
  • The media frequently highlights acts of violence by people it can describe as "right-wing," even if their views ultimately are not such, even though it often ignores similar acts of violence committed by other groups.[52][53]
  • Among many, many other examples of bias against religious conservatives, the media has smeared conservative Roman Catholics for opposing liberal church officials.[54]
  • The Washington Post falsely labeled Leftist, Democrat-supporting Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan as somehow being "far-right."[55]
  • The mainstream media has avoided covering extreme pro-abortion bills despite giving extensive, negative coverage toward pro-life bills.[56]
  • Rather than encouraging objective reporting, the media often labels politically incorrect speech as "racist" even when such a term is debatable at best.[57][58]
  • A 2019 Media Research Center study found that mainstream media networks overwhelmingly chose to interview Democrat politicians over Republicans and asked hostile questions to the Republicans and not the Democrats.[59]
  • The media has not attempted to even appear unbiased when reporting on the climate change debate, describing climate change as a "crisis."[60]
  • The media has colluded to promote the concept of climate change as a "crisis."[61]
Liberal to Conservative Ratio
See also: Token conservative

Talk to any Fox News hating liberal and you will hear the same old regurgitated talking point – Fox is not Fair and 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 of ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, PBS, New York Times, Washington Post, and Newsweek, you get a total of five so-called conservative personalities among hundreds of liberals. At the least, Fox News employs the following liberals, among others:

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 Joseph Stalin and once boasted "I am all the contrary of a Christ" (and who was an early role model for Christopher Hitchens,[62]) 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."[63]

"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 in July 1959 that "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."[64]

In an interview with Bill O'Reilly of Fox News, Ted Turner, the atheist and liberal founder of CNN, denied that Fidel Castro's Stalinist regime ever killed anyone, as "that's never been proven." [65]

CNN, which was the first foreign media network to obtain a Havana bureau, promoted Cuba's Healthcare as a model for the U.S. While it did mention accusations of serious problems, nearly all of the report was positive.[66]

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. Cronkite's infamous report on the Tet Offensive was suspected to be one of the reasons why then-President Lyndon B. Johnson decided not to pursue reelection.[67]

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."[68]

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.[69] Some false reports made by biased journalists include claiming the VC managed to overrun five floors of the American embassy, when in reality they never even managed to get past the main entrance, or Newsweek showing 18 out of 29 images depicting Marines either dead or huddled behind cover, neglecting to mention that they were pushing back the NVA onslaught.[70]

British "Encounter" journalist Robert Elegant stated,

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 correspondent's own side.[71]

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."[72] Ironically, it was also because of the bias from the Western press, in particular The New York Times, that caused the NVA to undergo their Tet Offensive with overconfidence that they would cause the entire South Vietnamese to embrace Communism and go against Capitalism and Saigon.[73]

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 that he had been a KGB operative since the 1930s, and member of the notorious Silvermaster group.[74] 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, as mentioned above, 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,

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)

In addition to Cronkite's biased reporting, FBI documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by Yahoo! News offer 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.[75]

Donald Trump
See also: Mainstream media and Donald Trump

The leftist mainstream media has been very biased against President Donald Trump. It promoted bigotry[76] and even violence[77] against the Trump Administration and its supporters. Multiple different studies by both conservative and mainstream organizations have found mainstream media coverage of Trump to be overwhelmingly negative.

The Daily Beast reported the whereabouts of Gonzalo Lira to the Ukrainian gestapo;[78] Lira was disappeared on April 15, 2022.
Gonzalo Lira
Main article: Gonzalo Lira

According to Gonzalo Lira, who was reporting from Kharkiv during the Russia-Ukraine war, Lira said:

"If ever you don't hear from me for 12 hours during this conflict, if it's 12 hours or more, assume that I've been picked up by the SBU. And assume that the people most responsible are the Daily Beast, the Daily Beast who deliberately lied about me, claiming that I'm not in Kharkov, admitted to the fact that people are looking for me and want to get a hold of me in the very hit piece that they wrote, and that they contacted the Ukrainian government to make them aware that I'm in Kharkov, make them aware of my significance, make them aware so they can send some SBU goons to get me. Understand what the Daily Beast has done. And when I said, you know, in the in the title of this that the Daily Beast wants to kill me, I'm not being hyperbolic."[79][80][81]

The SBU is the fascist Maidan regime's gestapo organization.[82]

Liberal media outlets

Liberal Bias.png

The following media outlets described below frequently display liberal bias:

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, or 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 Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Hillary and Bill Clinton, and the late Senator Ted Kennedy.[85]

In 2017, the Associated Press falsely attacked the conservative governments of Poland and Hungary, comparing them to Turkey's authoritarian government and claiming they are suppressing free speech. In the same report, the AP discussed far-left globalist donor George Soros and only used benevolent terms to describe him, such as an "Hungarian-American investor," a "philanthropist," and a "Holocaust survivor."[86]

CBS News

CBS insider Bernard Goldberg wrote the definitive book on liberal bias in the media, simply entitled 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." [87]

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 ..." [88]

The CBS Evening News with Walter Cronkite's intervention with the Vietnam War is a classic example of liberal bias. For more details, see above.

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.,[89] 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 that 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.


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.[90]

New York Times, The

Peter D. Feaver of the Boston Globe noted on the sixth anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks that 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 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 interests, and has all the trappings of a major political campaign."[91] Within a day it was discovered the New York Times gave 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 confirmed that the liberal activist group paid only $65,000 for the ad - a reduction of more than $116,000 from the stated rate.[92] 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.[93] 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.[94]

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,[95] and the transformational results of faith in such,[96] while failing to provide scholarly evangelical responses which refute their theories.[97][98][99]

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",[100] based upon his own objectively baseless and mutable moral authority.[101]

As noted by Don Feder[102] in response to a Newsweek article titled “America’s God Complex – Like George W. Bush, The Religious Right Is At The Crossroads”[103] 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,[104] which attempts have resulted in extensive refutation by evangelical scholars and writers.[105][106][107]

Public Broadcasting Service

An NBC News employee murdered Lee Keltner, an unarmed peaceful protester during a Patriot Rally, in Denver, Colorado, October 10, 2020.[108] Hours earlier, former NBC News anchor Keith Olbermann called for Trump supporting "maggots" to be removed from society.[109]

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".[110] In a fake display of following the rules, 300-plus PBS stations have been instructed to avoid any kind of religious programming.

Other liberally biased outlets and media figures

While buildings burned behind him, Ali Velshi of MSNBC reported with a straight face that leftist "protests" in Minneapolis were "not generally speaking unruly."[111]
Communist agitprop: "Fiery but mostly peaceful" during the 2020 Marxist uprisings in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

The following liberal media sites and personalities display varying levels of liberal bias and reporting of fake news, with politically-focused YouTube channels such as The Young Turks and certain personalities like Samantha Bee and Michael Moore being utterly blatant, outright and outrageous in their lies (and, in the case of those with YouTube presences, whose videos' comment sections are a virtual echo chamber of hive-minded liberals who repeat those lies):

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.[125] A 2008 comprehensive analysis conducted by the Media Research Center[126] 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.[127] During the President's 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." and "It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage."[128]

Newsweek editor Evan Thomas is seen by some to confirm the lack of objectivity and tendency to give undue exaltation they see the mainstream 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."[129]

Bill Clinton also was given lots of favor during his candidacy and presidency, to the extent that Time Magazine even openly admitted that they'll let a complaint Bill Clinton slide simply because they liked him during the 1992 presidential election. Likewise, the media, thanks to Clinton supporter James Carville, frequently proceeded to victim-blame several of Bill Clinton's victims, such as Paula Jones, by derogatorily referring to them as "trailer trash" among other epithets. In 1994, after the GOP senator Jesse Helms made a joke that could have been interpreted as calling for the assassination of Clinton, the media expressed outrage and demanded that the Secret Service investigate him. However, in 2006, where John Kerry, while appearing on the Real Time with Bill Maher, and proceeded to make a similar joke about assassinating then-President George W. Bush where he said, in response to Bill Maher's comment about he could have gone to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone, "Or, I [Kerry] could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone." (as well as being shameless enough in the joke that he posted it on his own website after the fact) was ignored by the mainstream media.[130]

Twitter executives' hate speech

A Twitter engineer tweet 3 days after President Trump's first inauguration.[131]

Twitter’s senior executives have a long history of anti-Trump hatred, a New York Post review of dozens of accounts of top employees found.[132] The venom, vitriol and, in some cases, vows to help Joe Biden win the 2020 presidential election.

“GET HIM OUT,” posted a senior site reliability engineer on August 18, 2020 “What a f–king baboon.” One manager with 9 years on the job said he was quite keen to watch Biden “crush [Trump] in the election” and that he hoped the president would “be utterly humiliated while also suffering greatly from #COVID19.” He calls Trump “a f–king idiot” and the voters who elected him — “hysterically f–king stupid people.” Others publicly wish the president harm. One Twitter engineering manager said Trump should “die in a fire” in a January 2017 tweet. A year later, he rang in the new year by saying “Happy 2018! Donald Trump is dead!”

None of these comments have ever been flagged by Twitter or been subject to any other form of official sanction, even as the social-media giant dishes out discipline to others for sharing legitimate news stories about Joe Biden. After a fly landed on Vice President Mike Pence’s head during his debate with Sen. Kamala Harris, the Twitter vice president noted crudely that flies are “drawn to sh-t.”

Spreading misinformation and lies about the Trump family is common. A senior staff engineer inquired why the media wasn’t looking into Melania Trump’s “possible stint as a sex worker.” The first lady denied this allegation and successfully sued over it. Twitter’s “head of integrity” Yoel Roth, who helped author the policy update used by the company to flag and label posts from President Trump, compared White House officials to Nazis and Trump to a “racist tangerine.”

Biden change

Following four years of unending hostility by the press toward the President, the Presidency of Joe Biden brought a sea-change to journalistic attitudes. Prior to inauguration, reporter Joe Acosta stated that "I don’t think the press should be trying to whip up the Biden presidency and turn it into must-see TV in a contrived way".[133] Press relations go beyond a simple refusal to scandalize every word uttered. Reporters willingly collude with the White House and its press secretary, furnishing their questions[134] ahead of time and playing along for "questions and answers" sessions. Some reporters expressed reservation, but the friendly banter now seen in the average press briefing indicates a willingness to play the part.

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.[135] 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.[135]

Liberal 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 Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, 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."[136][137][138] When they are in the faculty they then discriminate against the hiring of conservative professors.[139]

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.[140]

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."[141]

Textbooks used in schools of all ages have also been exposed as promoting a decidedly liberal bias against the nation of Israel.[142] 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.

In the glossary of one 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.”[143]

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.[144]

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.[145]

Conservative opposition to liberal bias

See also: Conservative media and Alternative media

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 newsrooms. Democrats in the media are editors, national correspondents, news anchors, and reporters. Republicans in the media are 'from the right' polemicists 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."[146]

In June 2009, Republicans in the House of Representatives created the Media Caucus to fight the Democrat-aligned media propaganda.

Left-wing defense of liberal bias

The managing editor of 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.'"[147]

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."[148]

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.[149] 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 same-sex "marriage".[149][150] Although the New York Times has a particularly heavy bias when it comes to the homosexuality issue, the New York Times is not unusual in regards to the media having a liberal bias when it comes to the subject of homosexuality; see Homosexuality in the Media. John Stossel is an author, consumer reporter, and a co-anchor for the ABC News show 20/20. Cybercast News Service states the following regarding regarding the influence of the New York Times and Washington Post:

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."[151]

Statistical data

In 2008, John Perazzo, writing in, presented major research findings [152][153] 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.[154]
  • Between 6 and 8 percent attended religious services regularly, a tiny fraction of the corresponding rate for the public at large.[155]
  • Fully 81 percent of news media professionals favor affirmative action in business and academia.[156]
  • More than half of respondents said that adultery could be acceptable under certain circumstances; only 15 percent said it was always wrong.[157]
  • Between 67 and 76 percent were opposed to prayer being permitted in public schools.[158]
  • In 1964, 94 percent of media professionals voted for Democrat Lyndon Johnson over Republican Barry Goldwater.[157]
  • In 1968, 86 percent voted for Democrat Hubert Humphrey over Republican Richard Nixon.[159]
  • In 1972, 81 percent voted for Democrat George McGovern over the incumbent Nixon.[160]
  • In 1976, 81 percent voted for Democrat Jimmy Carter over Republican Gerald Ford.[161]
  • In 1980, twice as many cast their ballots for Carter rather than Republican Ronald Reagan.[162]
  • In 1984, 58 percent supported Democrat Walter Mondale, whom Reagan defeated in the biggest landslide in presidential election history.[156]
  • 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.[163]
  • 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.[164]
  • 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.[165]
  • 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[166]
  • In a 2004 nationwide poll of 300 newspaper and television journalists, 52 percent supported Kerry, while 19 percent supported Bush.[167]
  • In a 2008 survey of 144 journalists nationwide, journalists were 8 times likelier to make campaign contributions to Democrats than to Republicans.[168]
  • 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.[169]
  • In a 1988 survey of business reporters, 54 percent of respondents identified themselves as Democrats, 9 percent as Republicans.[170]
  • In a 1992 poll of journalists working for newspapers, magazines, radio, and television, 44 percent called themselves Democrats, 16 percent Republicans.[171]
  • In a 1996 poll of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers, 61 percent identified themselves as Democrats, 15 percent as Republicans.[172]
  • In a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation poll, media professionals were nearly 7 times likelier to call themselves Democrats rather than Republicans[173]
  • In a 1981 study of 240 journalists nationwide, 65 percent identified themselves as liberals, 17 percent as conservatives.[174]
  • In a 1983 study of news reporters, executives, and staffers, 32 percent identified themselves as liberals, 11 percent as conservatives.[175]
  • In a 1992 study of more than 1,400 journalists, 44 percent identified themselves as liberals, 22 percent as conservatives.[176]
  • In a 1996 study of Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, 61 percent identified themselves as liberals, 9 percent as conservatives.[177]
  • 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.[178]
  • In a 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation study of media professionals, the ratio of self-identified liberals to conservatives was 4.2 to 1.[179]
  • 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.[180]
  • In a 2005 University of Connecticut study of 300 journalists, the liberal-to-conservative ratio was 2.8 to 1.[181]
  • In a 2005 Annenberg Public Policy Center poll of nearly 700 journalists, the liberal-to-conservative ratio was 3.4 to 1.[182]
  • In a 2007 Pew Research Center study of journalists and news executives, the ratio was 4 liberals for each conservative.[183]

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.[184]

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."[136][185]

According to the Pew Research Center in January 2019, 73% of Republicans believe that the media does not understand people like them.[186][187][188]

Liberal American entertainment industry, bestiality and other sexual immorality

See also: Liberalism and bestiality and Liberal American entertainment industry and bestiality

American Television and bestiality

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."[189] See also: Liberalism and bestiality

On August 6, 2008 LifeSiteNews reported:

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.[189]

Endangerment of the public due to liberal media bias

Because of their now-blatant ideological bias and disregard for all things conservative, the liberal media has abandoned any and all pretense of being on the side of the public in its news coverage and basically no longer serves the public interest. In covering stories on Islamic terrorist attacks, the liberal media has refused to reveal the Islamic ideology which motivated the terrorists to kill and destroy, refusing to even identify them as Islamic terrorists. For that same reason, the liberal media has now even begun endangering the public by refusing to cover stories on natural disasters in areas of the United States which are considered "red states" or have a majority conservative population, such as the recent wave of tornadoes which struck the Midwestern states of Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa and Illinois (particularly the town of Oak Grove, Missouri, which was hardest-hit by tornado activity) on March 7, 2017, all because it considers that area of the country and its population to be the "wrong demographic".[190] Because of this willful and conscious media blackout decision due to liberal bias, much-needed aid for the victims of the tornado in Oak Grove and other affected areas has been slow in arriving.

Examples of Liberal Style

The style of a liberal often includes these basic characteristics, which include techniques to mislead or simply advance self-serving goals:

  1. a never-ending craving for attention (e.g., Hollywood types and politicians Bill Clinton and Chuck Schumer)
  2. a high word-to-substance ratio, as in using many words to say little of substance (e.g., Obama and the 90/10 rule here)
  3. interrupt others more frequently than conservatives do, reflecting how liberals rely on censorship to persuade (as Obama and Biden did in the debates)
  4. obsession with the media, and even with the few conservatives in the media
  5. feign offense as a way to silence criticism, or censor prayer and conservative viewpoints (e.g., ACLU)
  6. pretend to know more than one does; Isaac Newton admitted that he knew almost nothing, yet a liberal pretends to know much (e.g., Al Gore)
  7. use a double standard: racial remarks by liberals (e.g., Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton) are just fine, but extreme abuse greets any conservative for that
  8. insist that theories a liberal likes (e.g., evolution, man-made global warming) are somehow objective and indisputable, while what a liberal dislikes (e.g., conservatism) is subjective
  9. unjustified praise of atheists and other liberals as "geniuses", despite little achievement

Liberal style also includes these additional characteristics:

  1. support of greater bureaucratic control rather than more competition to address problems
  2. demands answers to questions, but after receiving answers then the liberal himself tries to avoid answering similar questions[191]
  3. refuses to admit the truth in debate, even if a conservative compromises in a conciliatory manner
  4. like to use the phrase "reflects poorly on the site" when talking about the liberal articles on Conservapedia [192]
  5. uses the term "controversial" to describe what he opposes (e.g., classroom prayer), but not to describe what he supports (e.g., theory of evolution)
  6. a lack of originality and a predominance of copying and imitating
  7. virtually never criticize hateful comments or behavior by a fellow liberal
  8. like to use the phrase "Silence Speaks Volumes" [14] [15] [16]
  9. call something disliked a "conspiracy theory," but don't use that term against wacky liberal theories like global warming
  10. respond with "sigh" when presented with repeated examples of harm caused by liberal culture, yet persist in denying the harm despite overwhelming evidence
  11. thinking in terms of what someone likes or doesn't like, or has or doesn't have, or belongs or doesn't belong
  12. declaring that one is insulted as a response to an argument[193]
  13. unsubstantiated claims of expertise, authority or knowledge
  14. insistence on talking more and having the last word in a discussion or debate, or last wordism
  15. attempting to portray conservatives as callous or uncaring; bait them into making insensitive remarks; falsely describing them as angry
  16. calling others "extremist" or "racist"
  17. an obsession with and exaggeration of artificial scarcity, such as wealth, rather than focusing on creating more
  18. ignoring or failing to recognize abstract concepts and denying obvious correlations between liberal beliefs and destructive behavior
  19. deny the obvious and embrace the implausible; see examples of liberal denial
  20. attempting to appear smarter than others, when often the opposite is true
  21. attempting to appear more reasonable than others, when often the opposite is true
  22. overreliance on hearsay, such as the false claim that most support evolution
  23. denial of accountability
  24. believing that bureaucratic honors or appointments are meaningful achievements, as fights over political office
  25. insisting on a mindless equality, as in "if you have an entry for Beethoven, then you must allow entries for vulgar rap artists!"
  26. concealing one's liberal views rather than admitting them
  27. calling conservative free speech "hate" speech [194]
  28. calling conservative humor "unprofessional and meaningless, and degrades the quality of your encyclopedia." [195]
  29. resistance to quantifying things, such as liberal bias or openmindedness
  30. preference for obscenity and profanity[196]
  31. over-reliance on mockery [197] [198] [199] [200] [201]
  32. over-reliance on accusations of hypocrisy [202]
  33. hostility to faith
  34. 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
  35. believing that the education of children is for liberals to control
  36. believing that conservatives will fail, and refusing to accept when they succeed, as when George W. Bush won in 2000
  37. reluctance to admit that anything is morally wrong
  38. bullying conservatives who disagree with liberal views
  39. draw an analogy between opponents and racists, no matter how illogical
  40. claim that science supports their position, and ignore any evidence that shows their position to be false
  41. often declare that an adversary should be "ashamed of himself," while rarely saying that about a supportive co-liberal (such as Ted Kennedy)[203] [204]
  42. willing to give away everything held dear by the majority to avoid serious conflict (such liberals who wish to pull our troops out of Iraq, and embolden the terrorists).
  43. using hyperbole instead of fact-based logic in an attempt to tug at people's emotions rather than appealing to their sense of reason.[205]
  44. often long-winded and verbose, and in debates liberals often consume more than their fair share of the alloted time, leaving less time for the other side.
  45. attempting to control the rules of evidence used in a debate. For example, claiming that Young Earth Creationism is false, and then refusing to allow supporting evidence by claiming that the scientists are religiously motivated.
  46. attempting to control the definitions of words through political correctness. For example, referring to Israel as "occupied territories" or suggesting that Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq are not part of Al-Qaeda.
  47. Dismissing legitimate criticism as "a joke" [206]
  48. Denying something widely known to be true but difficult to prove, such as observing that men are far more likely to work in gas stations than women.
  49. Will often deny being a liberal, or will claim to be a "true conservative", while spouting liberal and democratic talking points and criticizing basic conservative beliefs and principles.
  50. using non sequiturs in argument, such as responding to the point above that liberals over-rely on accusations of hypocrisy by citing an example of conservatives' observing liberal hypocrisy. But their example does not help their argument. Quite the contrary, use of that example tends to prove that liberals do over-rely on accusations of hypocrisy (relativism). Think about that.
  51. selectively citing the Bible when convenient, even though they hold much of it in disdain.
  52. silly demands for apologies.[207]
  53. can't understand the difference between identity (e.g., color of one's skin), perspective (e.g., Judeo-Christian) and bias (e.g., Bias in Wikipedia).
  54. inability or unwillingness to differentiate between genuine conservative arguments and parodies of conservative arguments.
  55. "Contrariness is creativity to the untalented" - Dennis Miller's general observation about liberal behavior.
  56. calling the use of the term liberal when used in a derogatory context "stupid"[208]
  57. denial that people can grow out of a liberal viewpoint, such as atheism

See also


  1. 1.0 1.1 Hanson, Victor Davis (December 22, 2016). The Trump Nail in the Media Coffin. National Review. Retrieved December 28, 2016.
  2. Brown, Michael (October 19, 2016). The Undeniable, Glaring Bias of the Mainstream Media. Townhall. Retrieved December 28, 2016.
  3. Riddell, Kelly (November 8, 2016). Mainstream Media Maligned: 10 Examples of Blatant Bias. The Washington Times. Retrieved December 28, 2016.
  4. Goodwin, Michael (November 14, 2016). Trump's victory is about change. And our biased mainstream media must change, too. Fox News. Retrieved December 28, 2016.
  5. MSM shouldn’t cover Trump's tweets, forcing him to rely on media to communicate – CNN anchor. RT. December 28, 2016. Retrieved December 28, 2016.
  6. Thomas Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed, New York: Basic Books, 1996.
  7. Roger Ailes: I Built Fox to Give Voice to Patriotic Average Americans Hated by Media Elites. Breitbart News. May 18, 2017. Retrieved May 19, 2017.
  9. James Lewis, Are Liberals, Atheists More Evolved than Conservatives?, American Thinker, March 14, 2010
  10. Harper's Weekly
  11. The Fall and Rise of Partisan Journalism
  12. Appleton's Cyclopædia of American Biography, Volume 1
  13. Schudson, Michael (2008). "The "Lippmann-Dewey Debate" and the Invention of Walter Lippmann as an Anti-Democrat 1985-1996". International Journal of Communication 2. 
  14. Carey, James W. (March 1987). "The Press and the Public Discourse". The Center Magazine 20. 
  15. 15.0 15.1 The lost meaning of 'objectivity', American Press Institute
  16. 16.0 16.1 Walter Lippmann, [1], p. 355
  17. Public Opinion, page 1.
  18. Harper, Jennifer (December 4, 2018). Long-term press bias: Only 7% of journalists voted for George H.W. Bush in 1992. The Washington Times. Retrieved December 4, 2018.
  22. Bozell Column: Who's 'Fierce' on Abortion?, October 14, 2008
  24. Nolte, John (May 15, 2019). Nolte: Debunking the Media’s Seven Latest Hysteria Hoaxes. Breitbart News. Retrieved May 15, 2019.
  26. Shaw, Adam (March 10, 2017). Four times Republicans faced outrage for things Dems did first. Fox News. Retrieved March 13, 2017.
  27. Multiple references: See also:
  28. Pollak, Joel B. (February 22, 2018). CNN Lets Students Attack Dana Loesch as a Bad Mother at Town Hall on Guns. Breitbart News. Retrieved February 22, 2018.
  29. Pollak, Joel B. (February 21, 2018). Shooting Survivor Quit CNN Town Hall After Refusing to Ask ‘Scripted’ Question. Breitbart News. Retrieved February 22, 2018.
  30. Concha, Joe (February 22, 2018). Fla. shooting survivor says CNN rejected town hall armed guards question: 'It ended up being all scripted'. The Hill. Retrieved February 22, 2018.
  31. Flood, Brian (July 9, 2018). Mainstream media will pile on 'conservative' label to Trump's Supreme Court pick, study shows. Fox News. Retrieved July 9, 2018.
  32. Dinan, Stephen (July 24, 2018). Networks' coverage of Trump immigration policy 92 percent negative. The Washington Times. Retrieved July 24, 2018.
  33. Munro, Neil (July 24, 2018). TV News Gives Migrants 120 Times Airtime As Victimized Americans. Breitbart News. Retrieved July 24, 2018.
  34. Flood, Brian (August 10, 2018). Study suggests mainstream media double standard at work after arrest of Rep. Chris Collins. Fox News. Retrieved August 10, 2018.
  35. Pollak, Joel B. (August 11, 2018). Pollak: Almost Nobody Cares About Charlottesville Except NBC, CNN, and 200 Neo-Nazis. Breitbart News. Retrieved August 12, 2018.
    See also:
  36. Geraghty, Jim (October 13, 2018). The Beatification of Beto. National Review. Retrieved October 14, 2018.
  37. Morton, Victor (December 30, 2018). NBC News host says no air time for climate 'deniers' on "Meet the Press': 'Science is settled'. The Washington Times. Retrieved December 31, 2018.
  38. Byas, Steve (December 31, 2018). "Meet the Press" Drops Any Pretense at Objectivity on Climate Change Issue. The New American. Retrieved December 31, 2018.
  39. Multiple references: See also: Phillips rejected meeting with the students and continued slandering them:
  40. Multiple references: Double standards by The New York Times: See also:
  42. Bomberger, Ryan (January 22, 2019). Those pro-life Covington Catholic teens weren’t the racists. LifeSiteNews. Retrieved January 22, 2019.
  43. Multiple references: A rush to judgment from the establishment conservative media: Several Roman Catholics caved to the Left rather than defend their students: See also:
  44. Multiple references: Twitter refused to remove death threats against the students from its site: See also:
  45. Nolte, John (January 22, 2019). Nolte: Four Massive Media Hoaxes in First Three Weeks of 2019. Breitbart News. Retrieved January 22, 2019.
  46. Bourne, Lisa (February 18, 2019). Media run with Covington, Smollett stories to meet their agenda. LifeSiteNews. Retrieved February 19, 2019.
  47. Duke, Selwyn (February 20, 2019). A Tale of Two Standards: Jussie Smollett vs. the Covington Kids. The New American. Retrieved February 20, 2019.
  48. Nolte, John (January 29, 2019). Nolte: Washington Post Political Reporter Calls Trump Supporters ‘Rubes’. Breitbart News. Retrieved January 29, 2019.
  49. Chamberlain, Samuel (January 28, 2019). Washington Post reporter calls Trump supporters 'rubes' on podcast. Fox News. Retrieved January 29, 2019.
  50. Harsanyi, David (February 6, 2019). The State Of American ‘Fact-Checking’ Is Completely Useless. The Federalist. Retrieved February 7, 2019.
    See also:
  51. Bozell, Brent; Graham, Tim (July 27, 2019). Exclusive — Brent Bozell & Tim Graham: Fact-Check the ‘Fact-Checkers’. Breitbart News. Retrieved July 27, 2019.
  52. Duke, Selwyn (March 16, 2019). Media Reporting on New Zealand, but Did You Hear About That OTHER Bigotry-driven Massacre? The New American. Retrieved March 17, 2019.
  53. Williams, Thomas D. (March 17, 2019). Media Silence Surrounds Muslim Massacre of Christians. Breitbart News. Retrieved March 17, 2019.
  54. Kokx, Stephen (May 1, 2019). NBC report on ‘ultra-conservative’ Catholics smears Steve Bannon, anti-globalists. LifeSiteNews. Retrieved May 1, 2019.
  55. Dorman, Sam (May 2, 2019). Washington Post catches heat after labeling Louis Farrakhan a 'far-right' leader. Fox News. Retrieved May 3, 2019.
  56. Everson, Ryan (June 3, 2019). Media nearly ignores radical bills liberalizing abortion. Washington Examiner. Retrieved June 4, 2019.
  57. Ericson, Brian (July 18, 2019). The AP’s guidelines telling journalists to decide what’s ‘racist’ are already leading to disaster. Washington Examiner. Retrieved July 18, 2019.
  58. Concha, Joe (July 19, 2019). Media cried wolf: Calling every Republican a racist lost its bite. The Hill. Retrieved July 19, 2019.
  59. Haq, Masooma (August 21, 2019). Study: Mainstream News Networks Support Democrats’ Values. The Epoch Times. Retrieved August 21, 2019.
  60. Richardson, Valerie (September 4, 2019). Media's embrace of 'climate crisis' raises alarm about journalistic objectivity. The Washington Times. Retrieved September 17, 2019.
  61. Jasper, William F. (November 21, 2019). Exposed: Media Collusion for Greta Thunberg and UN Climate Hysteria. The New American. Retrieved November 23, 2019.
  62. Sean O'Hagan, Just a Pretty Face?, The Observer, July 11, 2004
  63. Ernesto "Che" Guevara in his diaries
  68. On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War, Harry G. Summers
  71. How to Lose A War: The Press and Viet Nam; Encounter (London), vol. LVII, No. 2, August 1981, pp. 73-90
  72. Uwe Siemon-Netto in the International Herald Tribune, reprinted in Encounter, October 1979
  74. 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 [2].
  76. Nolte, John (August 3, 2018). Nolte: Establishment Media Normalize Racism and Hate. Breitbart News. Retrieved August 3, 2018.
  77. Nolte, John (August 6, 2018). Nolte: Here’s Proof the Establishment Media Encourage Violence Against Trump Supporters. Breitbart News. Retrieved August 6, 2018.
  83., Enabling media bias, Marvin Olasky, December 4, 2001.
  84. 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." [3]
  85. AP Turns Heads for Devoting 11 Reporters to Palin Book 'Fact Check', FoxNews, November 17, 2009
  86. Williams, Thomas D. (December 29, 2017). AP Slams Hungary, Poland; Defends George Soros and His ‘Open Societies’. Breitbart News. Retrieved December 30, 2017.
  87. (Bias (book), page 222-223)
  88. (Bias (book), page 222)
  89. Mainstream media finally pounce on Edwards' affair LA Times, August 9, 2008
  90. Olbermann Renews 'Teabagging' Attack on Scott Brown, Cuts His Victory Speech
  91. MoveOn's McCarthy moment, By Peter D. Feaver, Boston Globe, September 11, 2007.
  92. Time Gives Lefties a Hefty Discount for "Betray us" Ad, Charles Hurt, New York Post, September 13, 2007.
  95. Rethinking The Resurrection, by Kenneth L. Woodward, Apr 8, 1996
  96. [4]
  97. See under Jesus-Resurrection
  98. Alternate Theories of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ— Part Two
  99. The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus Dr. William Lane Craig
  100. A Case Against Faith, Newsweek, Nov. 13, 2006
  101. Atheism versus Christ
  102. In culture war, Newsweek tells evangelicals – bring the troops home, November 27, 2006
  103. November 13, 2006
  104. “Our Mutual Joy", Dec 15, 2008 by religion editor Lisa Miller
  105. More than “Mutual Joy”: Lisa Miller of Newsweek against Scripture and Jesus
  106. Homosexual relations and the Bible
  107. Turning the Bible on its Head -- Newsweek Goes for Gay Marriage
  110. Abortion Providers Under Siege PBS, June 12, 2009
  111. *MSNBC Reporter In Front Of Burning Liquor Store: Protest “Not Generally Speaking Unruly”
    *The Naked Gun - "Nothing to see here!"
  112. Christo Aivalis YouTube page
  113. Tommy Campbell YouTube page
  114. The Damage Report with John Iadarola on YouTube
  115. Farron Balanced on YouTube
  116. Indisputable with Dr. Rashad Richey on YouTube
  117. The Majority Report with Sam Seder on YouTube
  118. During a phone conversation, Bernard Goldberg asked him, "What do you consider the New York Times? Rather answered, "Middle of the road." (Bias, page 221)
  119. The Ring of Fire on YouTube
  120. Royal Media on YouTube
  121. State Affairs on YouTube
  122. Trump Info on YouTube
  123. Trumps Again on YouTube
  124. Trumpet TV on YouTube
  125. Dan Gainor, ONE YEAR LATER: Journalists' Love for Obama Still Going Strong, November 06, 2009
  126. [5]
  127. Study: ABC, NBC, CBS strongly support Obama August 20, 2008
  128. Political Punch, November 24, 2008 8:06 AM
  129. June 5, 2009, MSNBC interview with Chris Matthews
  133. CNN Reporter Jim Acosta Admits He Will Change His Coverage For Biden
  135. 135.0 135.1 "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.
  136. 136.0 136.1 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
  142. [6]
  144. San Francisco Jewish Community Publications, Friday, February 13, 2004
  145. Fox News, March 11, 2010
  146. [[Slander (book)|]], P. 60
  147. Time Editor: Objective Journalism a 'Fantasy'
  149. 149.0 149.1
  152. In the Tank: A Statistical Analysis of Media Bias By John Perazzo | Friday, October 31, 2008
  153. Mostly from Media Research Center, The Liberal Media Exposed
  154. 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.
  155. 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.
  156. 156.0 156.1 Los Angeles Times 1985 survey of 2,700 journalists at 621 American newspapers, Op. cit.
  157. 157.0 157.1 Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman’s 1981 survey of 240 journalists at top media outlets, Op. cit.
  158. 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.
  159. Ibid.
  160. Ibid.
  161. Ibid.
  162. California State University survey of reporters from the 50 largest U.S. newspapers.
  163. U.S. News & World Report writer Kenneth Walsh’s 1995 study of 28 White House correspondents.
  164. 1996 Freedom Forum survey of 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, Op. cit.
  165. U.S. News & World Report writer Kenneth Walsh’s 1995 study of 28 White House correspondents, Op. cit.
  166. .New York Times columnist John Tierney’s 2004 survey of 153 campaign journalists covering the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, Massachusetts.
  167. University of Connecticut Department of Public Policy’s 2005 survey of 300 television and newspaper journalists nationwide.
  168. MSNBC investigative reporter Bill Dedman’s study of the campaign contributions of 144 journalists.
  169. William Tate’s July 2008 report in Investor’s Business Daily.
  170. Journalist and Financial Reporting’s 1988 poll of 151 business reporters, Op. cit.
  171. David Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit’s 1992 survey of 1,410 journalists, Op. cit.
  172. American Society of Newspaper editors 1996 survey of 1,037 reporters at 61 newspapers of all sizes nationwide.
  173. .Kaiser Family Foundation 1996 poll of 301 “media professionals,” 300 “policymakers,” and 1,206 members of the general public.
  174. Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman’s 1986 study of the media’s attitudes and their influence on society, Op. cit.
  175. David Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit’s 1982-83 study of more than 1,000 reporters, executives, and staffers nationwide.
  176. David Weaver and G. Cleveland Wilhoit’s 1992 survey of 1,410 journalists, Op. cit.
  177. 1996 Freedom Forum survey of 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents, Op. cit.
  178. American Society of Newspaper editors 1996 survey, Op. cit.
  179. Kaiser Family Foundation 1996 poll of 301 “media professionals,” 300 “policymakers,” and 1,206 members of the general public, Op. cit.
  180. Pew Research Center 2004 poll of 547 journalists and media executives, including 247 at national-level media outlets.
  181. University of Connecticut Department of Public Policy’s 2005 survey of 300 television and newspaper journalists nationwide, Op. cit.
  182. Annenberg Public Policy Center and Annenberg Foundation Trust’s 2005 survey of 673 journalists, Op. cit.
  183. Pew Research Center’s 2007 survey of 222 journalists and news executives at national outlets.
  184. Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter, The Media Elite: America’s New Power Brokers (New York: Hastings House, 1990).
  185. Conservatives: Underrepresented in Academia?
  186. Harper, Jennifer (January 18, 2019). It's personal: 73% of Republicans say news media does not understand 'people like them,' study finds. The Washington Times. Retrieved January 18, 2019.
  187. Gottfried, Jeffrey; Grieco, Elizabeth (January 18, 2019). Nearly three-quarters of Republicans say the news media don’t understand people like them. Pew Research Center. Retrieved January 18, 2019.
  188. Hillyer, Quin (January 19, 2019). Large majority feels snubbed by media, and it's hardly a surprise. Washington Examiner. Retrieved January 19, 2019.
  189. 189.0 189.1 Study Finds TV Treats Marital Sex as Burdensome, Adultery as Positive
  190. Tornadoes, victims and "wrong demographics" at Conservative News and Views
  191. See, e.g., the stunt pulled by Clarence Darrow in the Scopes Trial.
  192. do a search on "reflects poorly"
  193. "One of Hillary Rodham Clinton's most prominent black supporters [Bob Johnson] said Sunday he was insulted by the characterization by rival Barack Obama's presidential campaign of her remarks about the civil rights movement." [7]
  194. Before the article was deleted, it said "New page: American Taliban You site is nothing but a Democratic hate site".
  195. --Tmcfulton 17:36, 13 November 2007 (EST) [8]
  196. When It Comes to Profanity, the Left Can't Help Itself by Matthew Sheffield at NewsBusters
  197. Your use of the first amendment sounds like liberal logic. Careful, you're on thin ice trying to utilize that amendment. The only amendment that counts is the second. For the rest of the Constitution, just refer to the Ten Commandments for everything you need to know. --Jdellaro 14:18, 20 February 2008 (EST) [9]
  198. "adolescent berating of Liberals" User:Graham 07:47, 23 September 2007 (EDT)
  199. "I would appreciate a little less paranoia Graham 09:07, 23 September 2007 (EDT) [10]
  200. "IN fact, this should be regarded as 'idiot's style'" Graham 08:26, 23 September 2007 (EDT) [11]
  201. "The toilets overflowed at school today...if only the liberals had allowed religion in school, this never would have happened." BillOhannity on October 1, 2007
  202. God and the Presidential Election, Bill O'Reilly, Human Events, December 29, 2007
  203. Porthos on 27 September 2007
  204. [12] RidiculouslyLiberal, November 3, 2007
  205. Anti-evolution teachings gain foothold in U.S. schools
  207. Senate Condemns "General Betray Us" Ad
  208. "Stop candying Liberal around like that... It just looks stupid." Graham 19:55, 22 September 2007 (EDT) [13]

External links