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)
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.+-- Crackertalk 11:54, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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.  --Ed Poor 12:02, 6 April 2007 (EDT)
- (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)
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)