Difference between revisions of "Talk:Liberal bias"

Revision as of 17:05, August 10, 2007

Template:Protection Warning

What is ...?

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

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

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

I agree, but if we remove the "Duh..." cases, we're basically left only with unsourced statements. ;) I'm not sure what the point of the article is, anyway. If the things in question have a liberal bias, just say it in the article and supply a source.</opinion> --Sid 3050 08:40, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

I also think this article should include a description of what liberal bias is so that the Conservatives amongst us know what to watch out for.

JC 09:28, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Unreferenced statements

Cut from intro:

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

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

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

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

Everything in it should have a citation.

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

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

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

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

According to this site

The nation's major media outlets seem to be owned by corporations which are by no means "liberal", except, perhaps, in the way they have liberally given to | politicians.+-- Cracker_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. --Scott 11:33, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

Done; I don't understand this either (but remember FOX News, purveyor of truth and justice ;), isn't listed), but the powers that be won't appreciate anyone changing it. Wikinterpreter

• Please! Whilst the majority of Americans are far more traditional/conservative than the news outlets are, and those who work for them, the fact that Fox News, in unbiased studies (and preception) is less "Liberal", it doesn't make Fox News "Conservative", just fair. --~ TK ^MyTalk 20:36, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

Why does the Conservative American public continue to buy and read such biased newspapers, radio and television stations, instead of putting their money where their mouth is and creating a reputable conservative alternative? Is Rupert Murdoch the only person who saw the majority of Americans as a potential market!? Does he/News Corp have major newspapers too, or just the Fox News television channel? --Scott 23:48, 8 April 2007 (EDT)

• News Corp is one of the world's largest media holding companies. Its holdings includes TV Guide, Sky and Direct-TV satellite services, the various Fox networks, Harper-Collins publishing, The London Times, New York Post, dozens of newspapers in Australia and the 20th Century Fox motion picture and television studios. --~ TK ^MyTalk 00:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Disney owns ABC, Disney gave GWB's 2000 campaign 640K.

Westinghouse owns CBS. (No political contributions cited.)

General Electric owns NBC, GE gave GWB $1.1 million in 2000

TIME-WARNER TBS owns: CNN, HBO, Cinemax, TBS Superstation, Turner Network Television, Turner Classic Movies, Warner Brothers Television, Cartoon Network, Sega Channel, TNT, Comedy Central (50%), E! (49%), Court TV (50%). Largest owner of cable systems in the US with an estimated 13 million subscribers.

TIME-WARNER TBS gave GWB $1.6 million in 2000.

NEWS CORPORATION LTD. / FOX NETWORKS (Rupert Murdoch BoD Phillip Morris):Phillip Morris donated 2.9 million to George W Bush in 2000.

Cracker_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! --~ TK ^MyTalk 00:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I don't get embarrassed , only enlightened, | here is my source. I defer to your expertise. Thank you for your kind attention to my little additions around here. Cracker_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? --Scott 01:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Cracker, the donation amounts to GWB don't tell me much without knowing whether they were given before or after he was the endorsed Republican presidential candidate - did they actually support him against Al Gore/John Kerry, or against other Republicans to ensure they had the right Republican? Note that while I (think I) understand the US political process, I do not have a good grasp on the politics of the various people, along with many of the other non-American readers here, so may well be asking naive questions to someone in the system. Sorry, but if we don't ask, we don't learn. Your source is dated 2003, but was wrong anyway - it says News Corp owns Ansett Airlines. It sold its 50% interest in early 2000, and the airline went bust in 2001. I don't know if it got any media info wrong. --Scott 01:24, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

I was only providing "who owns what" The campaign contributions just happened to be on the site I cited so I included that as well. I suppose my point was that Westinghouse, GE, News Corp, and Disney are not known in the USA as bastions of liberalism. Cracker_talk

• That site must need some kind of Liberal password, cause it won't resolve for me..... :p --~ TK ^MyTalk 02:00, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Try it now. Cracker_talk

Ouch! --Scott 02:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

GE and Westinghouse probably care more about Defense and electricity contracts and policies than they do about media bias. If they exercise editorial control, that is likely to be the focus. --Scott 02:17, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

• Yes, that would explain NBC hiring Rick Kaplan to run its news.  :p Time-Warner, one should see that Ted Turner is one of the largest stockholders. --~ TK ^MyTalk 03:19, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

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. [1] --Ed Poor 12:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

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

TK?

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

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

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

It's locked?

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

Middle of the Road

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

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

Communism for Dummies

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

It looks very suspicious. It should be removed because of the circumstances you just described. Bohdan 17:05, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

• Sigh. There is a whole line of books with the tag ....."For Dummies" explaining things like "Computers for Dummies", "Windows XP for Dummies", etc. Check Barnes and Noble's website. Or Amazon.com. --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 17:31, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Yes my friend I have a few of those, but in regards to liberal bias if that is what was meant then that wouldn't exactly be a good example. I was just wondering if there was some infamous show or newspaper by that name that I wasn't aware of. Learn together 17:52, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

• Ahh! Wasn't a valid link anyway! --Sysop-TK _/MyTalk 17:55, 18 July 2007 (EDT)

Media bias

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

huh? Rob Smith 22:58, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

I seem to be rambling and in need of sleep. Let me try again: we are on the cusp of a revert war over the issue of whether the media is "accused" of having a liberal bias, or whether they have a "well known" liberal bias. Why don't we just add some sources instead of reverting? See CP Commandments #2 and #5, as well as the Editing Etiquette ("put your "facts" in neutral terms. For example, Secular geologists believe that the world is 4.5 billion years old is better than The world is 4.5 billion years old"). According to the rules, both versions of the statement in contention are not acceptible in their current form. Jazzman831 23:31, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

ok.. so you mean like, "according to longtime media watcher and analyst so-and-so the MSM is dominated by commie stooges & useful idiots", for example? Rob Smith 23:42, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Uh, yeah, as long as it follows the footnote to commandment two: "Sources should be authoritative works, not merely published opinions by others." Though good luck finding an authoritative source calling the NYTimes "commie stooges & useful idiots" ;-) Jazzman831 23:57, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

• Great sourcing on the CBS News bias, Rob. I don't think we will see Uncle Walter issuing an apology will we? --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{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. DanH 21:50, 9 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 [2], you may want to consider adding that information to this article.--Tash 22:06, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

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

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

That is a very interesting analysis; so liberals are pro-"suicide bomber" whereas right-wingers in the White House and FOX News oppose it. Even the Pentagon has jumped on the liberal bandwagon with this one, defying thier right-wing bosses and cow towing to the liberal slant. Hmmmm, that's news itself. Rob Smith 22:30, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

We should include the quote from Diane Sawyer when she said she was being interviewed for jury duty. A lawyer asked her if she could be objective. She responded with something like, "I'm a journalist. I'm always objective." The Courtroom broke out into a roar of laughter. Sawyer says it was the most embarassing moment of her life. Rob Smith 22:12, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

Yes, after a second look it did not say liberal bias, thanks for the catch. But still, if you look through the article, it seems to imply leftest bias in the media. --Tash 22:33, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

• Poor Diane. :-( A long way from those long walks on the beach with Richard Nixon in exile. Sawyer was part of the very small staff working for Nixon post-exile. She had a nible mind, and a fierce dedication to Nixon. Then she moved East, married Mike Nichols...and what happened! --şŷŝôρ-₮K^{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. Rob Smith 13:05, 10 August 2007 (EDT)