Democrats & Liberals Archives

What Liberal Media?

A new study conducted by Media Matters for America shows conclusively there is no liberal bias in the media. In fact, it proves that the major networks lean to the right more often than not, and have since Clinton’s days in office.

The content analysis classified nearly 7,000 guest appearances on Sunday news programs between 1997 and 2005 as either Democrat, Republican, conservative, progressive or neutral. And according to the study's conclusions, "Republicans and conservatives have been offered more opportunities to appear on the Sunday shows - in some cases, dramatically so."

Some of the study's conclusions are:

The balance between Democrats/progressives and Republicans/conservatives was roughly equal during Clinton's second term, with a slight edge toward Republicans/conservatives: 52 percent of the ideologically identifiable guests were from the right, and 48 percent were from the left. But in Bush's first term, Republicans/ conservatives held a dramatic advantage, outnumbering Democrats/progressives by 58 percent to 42 percent. In 2005, the figures were an identical 58 percent to 42 percent.

Counting only elected officials and administration representatives, Democrats had a small advantage during Clinton's second term: 53 percent to 45 percent. In Bush's first term, however, the Republican advantage was 61 percent to 39 percent -- nearly three times as large.

In both the Clinton and Bush administrations, conservative journalists were far more likely to appear on the Sunday shows than were progressive journalists. In Clinton's second term, 61 percent of the ideologically identifiable journalists were conservative; in Bush's first term, that figure rose to 69 percent.

In 1997 and 1998, the shows conducted more solo interviews with Democrats/progressives than with Republicans/conservatives. But in every year since, there have been more solo interviews with Republicans/conservatives.

The most frequent Sunday show guest during this nine-year period is Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who has appeared 124 times. Sen. Joseph Biden (D-DE) has been the most frequent guest since 2003.

In every year examined by the study -- 1997 - 2005 -- more panels tilted right (a greater number of Republicans/conservatives than Democrats/progressives) than tilted left. In some years, there were two, three, or even four times as many righttitled panels as left-tilted panels.

Congressional opponents of the Iraq war were largely absent from the Sunday shows, particularly during the period just before the war began.

Granted, this survey looked only at Sunday news programs, but as the study states:

The Sunday-morning talk shows on ABC, CBS, and NBC are where the prevailing opinions are aired and tested, policymakers state their cases, and the left and right in American politics debate the pressing issues of the day on equal ground.

If all of this is true, why does the conservative movement bark about the media's liberal bias? A rebuttle by Meet the Press offers some evidence contrary to Media Matters's study. Betsy Fischer, the show's executive producer, offered this retort to the study:

We'd respectfully request that if Media Matters wants to undertake an unbiased look at Sunday show appearances - they do just that - and include statistics from President Clinton's first term - and avoid comparing apples to oranges.

Why does she say this? Because the statistics show that during Clinton's first term Democrats and progressives were better represented on the show than Republicans and conservatives.

During the first two years of the Clinton Administration - when Democrats controlled both the White House and Congress - the breakdown of ideological guests were as follows: 1993 (72 Democrats, 29 Republicans -or a ratio of (71% Dem to 29% GOP); in 1994 ( 71 Democrats and 47 Republicans - or a ratio of 60% Dem to 40% GOP). When both House of Congress shifted to Republican control in 1995 - the number Republican guest appearances also increased and resulted in almost an even number of Republican and Democratic appearances.

In summary, for the first term of President Clinton (1993-1996), the ideological breakdown of guests on "Meet the Press" was as follows: 260 Democrats to 208 Republicans - for a ratio of 56% Dem to 44% GOP). How different is that from the first term of President Bush? Well, it's basically the same - according to Media Matters own findings - Republicans accounted for 58% of all guests on Sunday shows in President Bush's first term and Democrats accounted for 42% of appearances).

Admittedly, there may have been a liberal bias in the media at one point, over TEN years ago. It's long gone now. Conservatives probably harp on it because they finally have all the power they dreamed of having in the 90's and have no ability to use it for the betterment of our society. I doubt that's even the goal of some Republican leaders but since they're screwing things up so badly they have to cry about something. Here's an idea, quit complaining about something that doesn't exist and fix all the things you've screwed up over the last few years. The media, liberal and conservative, will eat that up.

Social Radiation

Posted by Vihar Sheth at February 16, 2006 11:44 AM
Comments
Comment #125914

If we assume that this study by Media Matters is itself unbiased, it proves only that there has been equal representation of conservatives and liberals on Sunday news programs. You certainly can’t extrapolate that to the statement “shows conclusively there is no liberal bias in the media”. Have you watched the CBS Evening News in the past ten years?

Posted by: Fred S. at February 16, 2006 12:33 PM
Comment #125917

It’s interesting that the media is made up of highly informed, reasonably intelligent, middle class citizens. It’s damning to the conservative flag bearers if they cant win over this group.

But your right Vihar, they bend over backwords to avoid being called liberal or biased.

Posted by: Schwamp at February 16, 2006 12:39 PM
Comment #125918

Vihar,

So, basically, when there were more of one party than the other in the House/Senate at the time, the majority party got the majority of invitations. Quite the revelation.

However, bad research! You can have a member of one party on and have it be contrary to their views by ending the interview and then slamming everything they said. The question isn’t about the number of political guests but WHAT THE JOURNALISTS ARE IMPOSING ON THEIR READERS/LISTENERS.

Polls (a liberal love machine if there ever was one) were conducted as early as the mid-90’s and as recent as last year. 2/3 of the journalists routinely lean to the left.

But here’s the real breakdown of the major news outlets:
Libs hate: Talk Radio (minus PBS), Fox News
Cons hate: CNN, CBS, ABC, BBC, Al Jazeera, NY Times, Washington Post, San Fran Chronicle, Atlanta Journal and, to a lesser degree, NBC, MSNBC, and the Chicago Tribune.

Now, re-write your article.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 16, 2006 12:40 PM
Comment #125921

Vihar,

Thank you for pointing this out. I think most have known this for a while. It is hard to say that the media is liberal biased while for so long they ignored so much goings on in this administration because it would paint it in a negative light. It wasn’t until recently that the media has once again decided that it is ok to do it’s job. The NSA spying program leak is a good example, the NYT held the story for over a year before reporting it. If the NYT was truly liberal biased they would have released the story before the 2004 election.

What would be interesting is the ratio of liberal commentators to conservative commentators on news programs. I think you will find it leans strongly to the right. Even supposedly liberal CNN just hired three new conservative commentators, while the best political commentator out there is relegated to a few minute blurb on Wolf Blitzer’s the Situation Room, Jack Cafferty. I really wish CNN would expand the Cafferty Files to an hour, Jack is not afraid to call a spade a spade and tell it like it really is. So, if anyone from CNN is reading this:

GIVE THE CAFFERTY FILES IT’S OWN HOUR LONG TIME SLOT!!

Tell CNN to expand the Cafferty Files: CNN Feedback

Posted by: JayJay Snowman at February 16, 2006 12:52 PM
Comment #125922
Polls (a liberal love machine if there ever was one) …

What, now social science research is inherently liberal? Please explain what you mean by the above!

Posted by: steve K at February 16, 2006 12:53 PM
Comment #125925

Ken,

Are you saying that all those papers are too democratic? I see some holes in that, for instance, the Chicago Tribune has not endorsed a Democratic candidate for presidency for over a hundred years. Those aren’t liberal papers, it’s just that the right of this country is now so far right that the only news they accept as “balanced” has to present an overtly Republican agenda on all issues all the time.

Posted by: Max at February 16, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #125927
But here’s the real breakdown of the major news outlets:

Libs hate: Talk Radio (minus PBS), Fox News

Cons hate: CNN, CBS, ABC, BBC, Al Jazeera, NY Times, Washington Post, San Fran Chronicle, Atlanta Journal and, to a lesser degree, NBC, MSNBC, and the Chicago Tribune.

I disagree vehemently. I’m as Liberal as they come, and I HATE CNN, CBS, ABC and NBC. I won’t cover foreign media, because they do not apply to the topic here.

Regarding print media, you conveniently leave out the Wall Street Journal (one of the top newspapers in America) and the Washington Times. Both are as conservative as they get. I’d rather read the wall Street Journal than most of the print publications you cite.

Posted by: Steve K at February 16, 2006 12:58 PM
Comment #125933

Ken,
One question,
Why would anyone want to rule out so many of the media? I, myself, would worry that I wasn’t well informed if I ruled out all the media available.

Recently I found myself in a position where the only news programs I could receive were CNN and Fox. I found both to be extremely slanted - Fox to the Right, and CNN to the Left. I can only hope that during that time I was capable of sorting out the truth between them.

I seldom watch the Sunday morning shows - frankly I have better things to do during that time, but I do watch ABC, CBS, NBC and both Fox and CNN at some point during each day.

I doubt it is totally possible for anyone involved in our world today to be totally non-bias. I do however believe that if one tries to see both sides (or in many cases all the sides) of a situation, it is possible to report it in a realizably accurrent manner.

I will say that I do not listen to talk radio - of any sort. I am thankful that in my area one can’t pick it up.

Posted by: Linda H. at February 16, 2006 1:09 PM
Comment #125939

Vihar
Guests and hosts do not make a network liberal. It is the topics and the manner in which way they are “reported” on that do so.
What a network will NOT cover, also says alot about how liberal it is.

Liberals say FOX is a Republican network.
Republicans say all the rest make up the liberal media.
That alone tells you which way the majority of the media leans.

Posted by: Tim Huff at February 16, 2006 1:23 PM
Comment #125941

So let me see if I understand. When The Democrats controlled both the White house and Congress, left-leaning guests were more frequent. When the White House and Congress were split, the appearances were roughly split. When both were controlled by Republicans, right leaning guests were more numerous. Should this surprise us? If you want the policymakers on your show, these results are about what one should expect. No evidence of bias.

But this misses the entire point of media bias. Media bias exists in the stories that are covered, how they’re presented and goes much further than the news shows. In fact, I would argue that entertainment bias is far more pervasive and insidious. The stereotyping of right-leaning people, whether on West Wing or the buffoonish William Shatner character on Boston Legal, is so presposterous it would be funny - if people didn’t actually believe the cartoon-like caricatures.

Sorry, but this study essentially proves nothing except that those who make the news will be on the news. In recent years, that’s been the Republicans. Now if an unbiased group (which I’m not sure is even possible) wants to take a look at ALL media, then it might have some merit.

Posted by: Paul Szydlowski at February 16, 2006 1:26 PM
Comment #125945

Vihar:

I don’t see how you came to the conclusion that the “study conducted by Media Matters for America shows conclusively there is no liberal bias in the media. In fact, it proves that the major networks lean to the right more often than not, and have since Clinton’s days in office.” After reading the study, I think your comment is quite a stretch.

Its important to look at the variables in the study. It compares years in which Republicans control Congress AND the White House with years in which the control is split. The better comparison is the Republican controlled Congress and White House versus the Democratic controlled Congress and White House. You provided information on this comparison, which showed a skew in favor of the party in control. This was not an indication of any bias, but rather simply an indication of who was in control, and therefore who the newsmakers were.

Secondly, I don’t find that a listing of guests on television shows a compelling argument for a liberal or conservative bias. Morton Downey Jr. and Bill Maher would invite people with opposing viewpoints on their shows in a pretense of being fair minded, but they were anything but fair. At least Maher was funny, while Downey was just an annoying shill. But to suggest that Maher was anything but liberal would be amusing. He made no bones about it. His orientation did not derive from his guest list—its simply who he was.

Its true that more journalists personally lean to the liberal side in their personal lives. Does this mean their reporting is biased? No, but it does lend some credence to that idea. It’s not hard to imagine that someone who personally thinks one way would tend to think that same way in their professional life.

The study more than anything shows that the party in power gets more press coverage. I don’t see that it proves anything else.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at February 16, 2006 1:33 PM
Comment #125948

The best way to get the news is not by passively watching TV and waiting for them to spoonfeed us the truth. And Sunday Morning Talking-Political-Heads often do nothing but lie and slant the truth to benefit their side of the isle.
No, to get at the news and then weigh and balance what is actually the truth, one has got to go search it out on internet websites (which includes left, right, and foreign newspaper websites) and in the blogs. These days you’ll see important stories breaking in these places first, which is then followed up — or not as the case may be — by the MSM.

Tim:
“Liberals say FOX is a Republican network.
Republicans say all the rest make up the liberal media.
That alone tells you which way the majority of the media leans.”

Tim that has got to be one of the most illogical things I’ve ever seen you say in this blog.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 16, 2006 1:45 PM
Comment #125955

As an independent and a former newspaper reporter, I think most of the large media outlets do slant their reporting, but not as much as people claim.
There’s little doubt that CNN, CBS, etc have an inherent bias against republicans, Bush in particular. There’s also little doubt that Fox News, WSJ, etc have an inherent bias against democrats.

That being said, much of what is spun as “bias” is in reality sloppy reporting and/or sensationalism. The MSM (and I include Fox, etc in this), is quick to print anything that they hear about high-level politicians, whether it can be verified or not. The major media outlets report so many “facts” from “anonymous officials” these days that it’s easy to assume that some of it is being made up for the sake of headlines.

This weekend’s Cheney story is an excellent example of sensationalism. Obviously this was a big story and had to be reported. But why are the networks, papers and talk shows focused on it half a week later when there are real scandals like the Abramoff story going on? Because it’s good for viewership, readership and listenership. The VP shooting someone is inherently more interesting than congressional corruption.

Posted by: TheTraveler at February 16, 2006 1:58 PM
Comment #125968

Adrienne -

I agree. The only way to get good coverage of the news is to open up your sources. View things across the board (broadcast, print, online, etc.) and work to sort things out for yourself.

Personally, I think that the facts have a liberal bias… but what can you do with the facts? :)

Posted by: tony at February 16, 2006 2:30 PM
Comment #125969

Ken,

only conservatives hate Al Jazeera? In what poll did you find that??

I am amazed at the extent of Conservative hate of the media. The only other group I can think of that entirely hates what seems to be the mainstream media is radical Islam. Thanks for highlighting that shared similarity.

jbod,

I agree with most of your post - and I am concerned about this trend…

For me, what counterbalances the liberal bias of reporters is the conservative bias of the owners and senior executives of mainstream media.

The real leanings in mainstream media -

-entertainment - It is Larry King who is on prime time
-sloth - how many times have you found incorrect information in an AP story and watched that incorrect initial fragment repeated in every subsequent story?
-sensationalism - the noisier the better

Who is liberal in the media?

Russert
network anchors
Anderson Cooper
Chris Matthews

Is it really that big a deal? The WSJ has a clear point of view, but it does not disgust me such that I cannot read the stories.

I have a bigger problem with sensationalism and scream radio being passed off as news or discussion when it is neither. I found Crossfire offensive from both sides of the aisle but am not bothered by Tucker Carlson in print.

Have any point of view, it is a free country, but do not intentionally drown out the opposition and try to sell that as discussion (like OReilly or Limbaugh) - it is not.

And in a pluralistic society, if you find only one source of information can be credible, that is your bias you are unwilling to give up - but don’t blaim it on the media. It is a wretched excuse.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 16, 2006 2:34 PM
Comment #125973

“Polls (a liberal love machine if there ever was one) …
What, now social science research is inherently liberal? Please explain what you mean by the above!”
Posted by: steve K at February 16, 2006 12:53 PM

steve K:

Polling is one of the easiest ways to support any given supposition. Polling can be manipulated through the way the questions are structured and ordered as well as by the design used to select the poll participants. All polls have some inherent bias. The only way to determine the extent and type of bias is to examine the design of the polling procedures. Since that sort of data is not provided (it’s usually dull and requires some statistical expertise to understand), the best way to get relevant data from polls is to compare multiple polls on the same topic, keeping in mind the known biases of the polling administrators.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 16, 2006 2:47 PM
Comment #125974

Great comments by most of you. Here are some of my observations:

1) There is a division between reporters and owners. There’s a great piece on Rupert Murdoch in The Atlantic Monthly. I don’t know if you have to be a subscriber to read it but it can be found here.

2) Most of the truly engaged people I know do not watch the local or national news. It is wrought with sensationalism, simplifications and just plain erroneous information. The major networks put on a circus every day. Combining information from various credible sources is the only way to get the entire picture.

3) The WSJ comment by CPAdams was great. I know that the WSJ has a conservative viewpoint when it approaches a story or issue. They handle themselves professionally, and even if I don’t agree with what they write often times, I can still stand to read it. This is the exact opposite approach Bill O’Reilly takes. He just yells b.s. and all you can do is turn him off.

4) Great point about the Trib’s presidential endorsements. Some people just don’t do their homework before opening their mouths.

Posted by: Vihar Sheth at February 16, 2006 2:49 PM
Comment #125977

Adrienne
Why?
If half the country feels FOX is a Republican network and the other half feel the rest of TV pushes the liberal agenda, does that not show that people believe there is a bias?

Posted by: Tim Huff at February 16, 2006 2:53 PM
Comment #125991

Tim:
“If half the country feels FOX is a Republican network and the other half feel the rest of TV pushes the liberal agenda, does that not show that people believe there is a bias?”

But the general idea that people believe there may be bias in the media is not what you previously said:

“Liberals say FOX is a Republican network.
Republicans say all the rest make up the liberal media.
That alone tells you which way the majority of the media leans.”

What you are saying here is that everyone should know which way the media leans — and that because Republican’s feel all of the others are indeed liberal, that this is in fact the case.
So, what you were doing, was displaying your own bias against liberals — and using no logic at all.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 16, 2006 3:39 PM
Comment #125992

I have to say this…..what a joke the Democratic Party has proved itself to be with the coverage of the accidental shooting….by our Vice President. Really scraping the bottom of the barrel to find fault…it is actually funny….and it seems to me…would embarrass any one with any intelligence at all out of being or admitting to being a Democrat.

Posted by: Sheryl H at February 16, 2006 3:39 PM
Comment #125999

…and it seems to me… would embarrass any one with any intelligence at all out of being or admitting to being a Democrat.

I’d like to know why anyone would want to jion a political party these days. Most of the politicans they put forward are corrupt, incompatant or both.
If you truly want to help the country, throwing your support behind a certain party isn’t going to do much good.

Posted by: TheTraveler at February 16, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #126000

I read the article and then explored the web-site. If you want an interesting look at who the staffers and advisors are behind this organization, check this out:

Mediamatters Staff

This is the websites goal and I quote:

You can join Media Matters for America in the fight against conservative misinformation in the media. We regularly provide action items based on our real-time monitoring of the media and conduct action campaigns to prevent the spread of conservative misinformation.

Thousands of activists like you take advantage of these tools to hold the media accountable for spreading conservative misinformation.

This adds a lot of credibility to this post.

Posted by: Cliff at February 16, 2006 3:54 PM
Comment #126001

I guess I just coined a word in my last post. Jion (GE-ON): the act of supporting incompetence.

I hope the word becomes as popular as misunderestimate. ;-)

Posted by: TheTraveler at February 16, 2006 3:56 PM
Comment #126002

Let us all drop our particular biases and understand that the media’s bias is toward money.

Not one of these shining examples of American Journalism is so altruistic that they don’t go where the money is.
The print media are in the business of selling papers.
The networks have sponsors to satisfy.
IMHO the closest to balanced news is Newshour with Jim Lehrer on PBS and it’s comercial free.

Posted by: Rocky at February 16, 2006 3:59 PM
Comment #126003

“I have to say this…..what a joke the Democratic Party has proved itself to be with the coverage of the accidental shooting….by our Vice President.”

You are aware that the news is brought to you by the news media… which is in no way, shape or form a part of the Democratic party. So why even attempt to blame a political party for the coverage of an event.

As far as your Veep, now that’s the joke. I don’t really think there’s much of a political leg to the story, other than the obvious lapse in judgement on the part of Cheney - first by shooting his friend, then by not coming forward with the incident. (I had several friends who would leave the scene of their wrecked car in attempt to avoid being busted for DUI.

Another point - if you can take pride in the past 5 years with your party (assuming you are REP) then I have no issue at all with you finding fault with my judgement… I like the company that puts me in.

Posted by: tony at February 16, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #126007

I read that article the other day. They have to report what the idiotic right wing lunatics are saying when they are in power, and that is the process that is happening now. If the Rpblcns were totally out of power, we would have less reporting on their issues, like flagwaving, enforced prayer, putting as many Americans in jail as possible, and pornography and gay marriage in election years.

The BBC is a good media source, but even it has to cover some of the same nonsense. On the talk shows, Tim Russert has been bothering me for a long time.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 16, 2006 4:05 PM
Comment #126008

goodkingned, You might want to bookmark this site:
www.pollingreport.com
It gives you all the latest poll results from various sources, and shows you exactly how the questions were worded.

Sheryl H,
Nice troll.
I think trying to act like it’s no big deal that the vice president who’d been drinking beer… and shooting at cage-raised, clipped-winged birds on game farm… but instead ended up shooting his friend at really close range and making him bleed profusely and later have a heart attack because of shot entering his heart… and making a mockery of the law by having the secret service tell local police that Cheney couldn’t be interrogated about the issue until the next morning is really scraping the barrel of decency and fair play.
It’s also an insult to all our intelligence — and might actually be funny if it wasn’t so tragic and wrong.
But it is par for the course:
1.) With the Neocon’s chronic secrecy over their many wrong doings.
2.) With their followers trying desperately once again to excuse the inexcusable on their behalf.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 16, 2006 4:08 PM
Comment #126011

Adrienne
So who is right?
The half who says there is no “liberal” bias but there is “Conservative” bias in FOX?
OR
The half who says there is “liberal” bias and FOX isnt biased towards the “Conservatives?”
OR
Are they both wrong because everybody reports the news straight up?

“So, what you were doing, was displaying your own bias against liberals”

Absolutely! And I don’t think FOX is really all that biased towards the right.
And, I’ll even go out on a limb and say that YOU believe the exact opposite.

Media bias has alot to do with perception. One rarely sees bias unless they disagree or are looking for it.
But the fact is, if you don’t see bias, it is because it is bias that you agree with.
Which is why you see FOX as being biased and why I see the rest as being biased.

Posted by: Tim Huff at February 16, 2006 4:13 PM
Comment #126012

This appears to be a retort to an earlier study by a UCLA Professor entitled, “A Measure of Media Bias.” This study came out about a month ago and demonstrated a liberal bias in the media through the use of quoted sources by various outlets. That study was severely criticized by Media Matters for analyzing one type of source (special interest groups) and making broad conclusions about overall bias. Yet here it is a month later and they appear to being doing the same thing that they criticized.

If you say that their study did not make the broad conclusions that the UCLA study did by limiting their conclusion to only Sunday Talk Shows, then why did they include the inferences that Vahir quoted above? And surely Media Matters knew that people like Vihar would make those broad conclusions for them as this article clearly attempts.

To me this another case of the pot calling the kettle black. Media Matters is itself a biased resource, and it appears that their medicine only applies to studies and sources that they disagree with.

Posted by: George in SC at February 16, 2006 4:14 PM
Comment #126013

To all you so called ‘conservatives’ (I still can’t figue out how those who undermine the constituion, ignore American and international law, attack the legal profession, wantonly consume resources in a wasteful and uninteligent way, spend without concern for consequences, etc. …can consider themselves to be ‘conserving’ anything at all), CONSIDER THIS:

When you compare our media coverage to that of the international sources out there, take the BBC for example, we come down pretty far right of the rest of the world! Human rights causes, for instance, are of profound concern to us all refardless of what side of the political spectrum you are on. We are forced to deal with China because they represent roughly 1/3 of the world’s population in one country. They are on the verge of becoming the most profoundly influential economic superpower in our world. We MUST deal with them. However, we can all agree that what they have done with regard to Tibet, religious freedom, Tiananmen square and Taiwan just to name a few, are things that are completely unacceptable. Our media gives lip service to these issues, but we as a nation are focused on our economic dealings with China. If you really want details on any of these issues, it is necessary to go to intenational sources. Why? …clearly not because we have LIBERAL bias in the media. …Not if we define American Liberalism as being concerned with things like civil liberties rights and freedoms, the ability of those being governed to have their voice heard! …Such is the definition of Liberalism given bu conservatives who also attack the ACLU, voting rights and registration campaigns and the American press.

If you really want to see where the bias is in our media, compare it to sources out there in the Human Rights arena:
Human Rights Watch
Human Rights USA
The Red Cross
Amnesty International
One World online
Etc.

I have heard the preposterous accusation from so called ‘conservatives’ that these organisations are themselves politically biased. HA. Sure they have their point of view, but they are based on issues we ALL SHOULD and COULD agree on. They are directly in line with the values our own country was founded on in rebellion against the empire of Britain and its tyranny against its colonies.

I even heard a stunning accusation from a Karate instructor in S.Austin Texas, where I used to live following the Abu Ghraib scandal two years ago. He claimed bias on the part of the Red Cross in reporting the story in the first place!
Never mind that the Red Cross was headed by Elizabeth Dole!!! Never mind that the duty of the Red Cross to deal with POW treatment concerns was put in place by treaty after WORLD WAR I !!! Never mind that our own CBS News (yes, that is directed at you, FRED S), and various other sources, glossed over the fact that there was at least one death as a result of suspected heart attack resulting from the elctrical torture that was going on. THIS GLOSSING OVER STUFF IS TYPICAL OF OUR MEDIA AND IT IS CONSERVATIVE IN ITS BIAS, NOT LIBERAL!

The only conceivable reason we have any significant numbers of Americans who believe we have a Liberal bias in our media is that too many Americans live insular sheltered existences without exposing themselves to other points of view throught their own communities or the world.
For instance, I knew a fellow in Austin who took a Ski trip to Europe a couple of years ago. He is a Texas Conservative. He came back flabbergasted that any of his travel companions had any desire to see any of the European sights or people at all. He thought it odd that anybody would want to do anything in Germany BUT Ski! I thought it odd to spend so much money to travel with so little curiosity about the destination. How completely sheltered that kind of existence is!

Our great nation simply does NOT HAVE A LIBERAL MEDIA!!!

It would be fair to say we have a media that thrives on sensationalism, but that is all that can be fairly said about it.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 16, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #126017

“Absolutely! And I don’t think FOX is really all that biased towards the right.”

But - how do you classify a TV station, that when they interview the President, they ask questions like:

“What do you say to people who think that the war in Iraq is not working? I mean, how do you deal with people who have no grasp on reality?”

Posted by: tony at February 16, 2006 4:25 PM
Comment #126020

I don’t think FOX is really all that biased towards the right.

You are obviously not a Democrat. Their local programming is okay, but watching Fox network news is torture. The last time I saw it was like watching inmates in a lunatic asylum, hopped up on speed, all agreeing with eachother like they did not have enough brains to have any independent thought, no offense intended to any inmates in a lunatic asylum who do not watch Fox.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 16, 2006 4:38 PM
Comment #126023

“This appears to be a retort to an earlier study by a UCLA Professor entitled, ‘A Measure of Media Bias.’” [Note: it’s co-authored. Tim Groseclose is at UCLA, he wrote this with Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri]

I don’t think the Media Matters article is a retort to the Groseclose & Milyo piece per se, though they certainly reach opposite conclusions.

In my opinion, neither study is very good. Groseclose & Milyo employ a pretty tortured 3-step process to assess the ideological bias of a media outlet: they count the number of times a media program cites a particular “think tank,” like the Brookings or Cato Institute. G&M then look to the number of times members of Congress cite the same think tank, and they deduce the “ideology” of the media outlet by correlating to the ADA (Americans for Democratic Action - a liberal interest group) score of the members of Congress. Their article is mostly worthwhile because it is a serious attempt to quantify a serious, but extremely diffult to quantify, issue. I’ve personally wrestled with the same problems trying to assess the ideology of various interest groups.

If you’re saying, “Huh,” fair enough. Anyway, there’s a little discussion in the polisci blogosphere about this article that could be googled.

The Media Matters piece, whatever else its merits might be, suffers from a huge omitted data problem - they don’t (IIRC) analyze the first Clinton term, wherein he had unified government for 2 years. This really makes their conclusions questionable, to say the least. One of the researchers from MMFA published an explanation, but his response to this issue is “We had to stop gathering data at some point, so we picked this one.” Is uncompelling at best and intellectually dishonest at worst.

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 16, 2006 4:40 PM
Comment #126024

Tony
You are talking about “talking heads” with their own opinions and I am talking about “newscasts.”
Looking back, I don’t think I clarified that and I apologize. I don’t watch or listen to opinion shows for news.

Posted by: Tim Huff at February 16, 2006 4:41 PM
Comment #126026

RGF,

wow. great stuff. and the punchline, of course, is that Austin is the most liberal city in Texas.

I live in Houston - I am a carpetbagger from NYC who moved here 4 years ago.

I cannot count how many Texans I have met who are not interested in anything other than Texas and how many are proud of having no interest other than Texas.

I alway thought that NYers like myself were self absorbed because they lived in the greatest city in the world. Then I met Texans en masse, who are even more self involved than NYers.

And so many are conservative, who cannot fathom the significance of many democratic issues simply because they are nonsensical in the only world they know.

I know I am off point, but being a liberal NYer living in Texas is like being Alice in Wonderland.

Thanks for your stories.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 16, 2006 4:43 PM
Comment #126028

and if anyone wants a simple, measureable example of conservative bias, find national news stories in the Houston Chronicle that were written for the NYTimes, and compare the NYT headline versus the conservatized HOU Chron headline. If it weren’t true, it would be hilarious.

Posted by: CPAdams at February 16, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #126031

Can anyone name a much more reliably Conservative op-ed voice than that of George F. Will?

Well, I guess he’s now joined the “Liberal Media”:

No Checks, Many Imbalances
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/15/AR2006021502003.html

Or maybe the truth about Bush & Co. is just so damning that even the most conservative journalists can’t “spin” it.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 16, 2006 4:52 PM
Comment #126032

Ray O
And you obviously are not a Republican if you can watch CNN, ABC, NBC or CBS without feeling tortured. (lol)
But really, as I said to Tony, I should have made it clear that I was talking about newscasts and not opinion shows.
What they report, how they report and what they don’t report, is very telling.

Posted by: kctim at February 16, 2006 4:53 PM
Comment #126033

Tim -

That interview was presented on a news program - presented like actual news.

Actually - I used to do location shooting for Fox News when it was just getting started. I know the ‘dark side will forever control my destiny’ now but I try to stay on the good side as much as possible.

Posted by: tony at February 16, 2006 4:54 PM
Comment #126034

Tim,
I think that if you just watch FOX news (I’m leaving out all their many pundit shows which I’m sure we all realize are nothing but commercials for the GOP) the bias often lies in what they CHOOSE NOT TO REPORT ON — rather than what they do report on (btw sometimes their facts are simply wrong or obviously distorted) — this has the net effect of casting a more favorable light on the actions of the GOP.

In my opinion, omission of the facts can be just as misleading as outright lying or subtle distortion of facts.

“But the fact is, if you don’t see bias, it is because it is bias that you agree with.”

Wrong. I don’t give a flying crap about MS television media — they don’t do any real investigative reporting, they sell entertainment and sensationalism rather than the straight dope. This is exactly why I surf the web and read everything I can about important issues — that means left, right, independent and foreign sources. In this way I am able to acknowledge all kinds of bias, but still gather every fact I can, and in that way, let the process lead me toward the truth.
Am I personally biased? Hell Yeah! I’m a Liberal thinker concerned with promoting progressive Liberal causes. But I don’t close my eyes when people do wrong in ANY DIRECTION, and I don’t like to be lied to or mislead by ANYONE.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 16, 2006 4:54 PM
Comment #126036

Here is an example of unbiased reporting on the Guantanamo issue from the BBC, note that they are reporting Mclellans statements without commentaing on their veracity:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4721068.stm

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 16, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #126039

Steve K.

Liberals tend to put too much stock in polls and they’ll continue to lose more and more elections if they do. They see 55% for and 45% against on an issue and they think they know the right way to lean. They also think polls are a validation. But polls are only about “the now” and have little consideration of the future or values. It’s the reason Kerry can’t be for gay marriage. It’s also the reason he “voted for it right after he voted against it”.

Polls create too much waffling. They’re good fodder for magazines but they shouldn’t dictate policy. An elected official should be voted for his plan and his ideas and his ideals, he shouldn’t be voted in to chase poll figures.

And that’s what I mean by that. Republicans aren’t completely void of the fallacy, but dems seem more prone to poll chasing in my view.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 16, 2006 5:03 PM
Comment #126043

Max,

The Chicago Trib also hasn’t endorsed a Republican President either. Don’t get me wrong, I very much applaud The Trib’s stance on this and I wish all papers would follow suit. But, I lived in Chicago for 2 years just recently. They’re not as bad as the NYT or SFC, but they do lean left.

Here’s the problem: Most libs think that if nothing is a lie then how can a paper be biased. Well first, papers like the NYT do lie, don’t they? But, ignoring that for a moment, imagine this:

Every day there are 3 pro-liberal stories, 3 anti-conservative stories, 3 pro conservative stories, and 3 anti-liberal stories. And every day the paper puts 3 pro-liberal stories, 3 anti-conservative stories, and 1 pro-conservative story in the very front section of the paper while the other 2 pro-conservative stories and 3 anti-liberal stories get shoved back around section H-22. There are no lies, no misprints, no mis-characterizations … but yet still overwhelming and obvious bias.

That’s the type of bias I saw to some degree in the Trib and what I see to this day in spades in the NYT and SFC.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 16, 2006 5:15 PM
Comment #126045
Polling is one of the easiest ways to support any given supposition. Polling can be manipulated through the way the questions are structured and ordered as well as by the design used to select the poll participants. All polls have some inherent bias. The only way to determine the extent and type of bias is to examine the design of the polling procedures. Since that sort of data is not provided (it’s usually dull and requires some statistical expertise to understand), the best way to get relevant data from polls is to compare multiple polls on the same topic, keeping in mind the known biases of the polling administrators.

Yes, I pretty much agree with you on this, but that says nothing about a Liberal bias in polling.


Posted by: Steve K at February 16, 2006 5:15 PM
Comment #126049

Ken Cooper,

“Most libs think that if nothing is a lie then how can a paper be biased.”

Oh, is that what’s happening? Do you even want to try to support this absurd claim?

“Every day there are 3 pro-liberal stories, 3 anti-conservative stories, 3 pro conservative stories, and 3 anti-liberal stories. And every day the paper puts 3 pro-liberal stories, 3 anti-conservative stories, and 1 pro-conservative story in the very front section of the paper while the other 2 pro-conservative stories and 3 anti-liberal stories get shoved back around section H-22.”

Wow. There are 12 news stories a day? That’s astounding. And they’re divided up exactly evenly? Holy schnikes, I can’t believe I never noticed! And then they’re partitioned diabolically bu the liberal media? Wow!

I mean, come one. If you’re going to just make stuff up, at least make it marginally realistic.

And I love how the liberal media keep jamming editorials by David Limbaugh (yeah, ole oxy’s brother) into my hometown fishwrap.

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 16, 2006 5:22 PM
Comment #126051
Liberals tend to put too much stock in polls …

Your assertion here isn’t backed up with any facts or evidence. You think Karl Rove doesn’t poll? You don’t think perhaps one of the reasons Cheney finally came out and spoke about the shooting was because they’d done some polling? Remember the “Contract With America?” The items in it were all selected because of how the polled!

What you say has a lot of validity, but it applies to conservatives as well as liberals, Republicans as well as Democrats.

Posted by: Steve K at February 16, 2006 5:23 PM
Comment #126052

I just have to add one more observation:

A few months ago, I travelled through Tulsa OK and visited some family I have there. It was immediately follwong the indictment of Tom Delay, which was in Austin, the place I was travelling from. I was stunned to see the story as printed in the TULSA WORLD NEWS. The story was nothing but quotations from Tom Delay’s defense counsel! It was reported in Tulsa as though Delay’s defense counsel was the reporter and the source was objective truth! I was amazed, to say the least. I pointed this out to my uncle who is generally conservative in many of his viewpoints, and his comment was merely that the Tulsa World News was a “Liberally owned paper.” …What the heck? By what standard? How? I let it drop after that. I clearly was going to get nowhere with my uncle.

The Austin paper, The American Statesman, reported the story with objectivity and expressed both sides in a way that was objective and persuasive…as well it should be, when the facts are reported in that way! I suspect that conservatives just don’t recognize the bias right in front of them. For instance, When the Delay scandel was just heating up, Delay spent significant money to run TV ads in the AUstin market directed at the Prosecutor who brought the charges and clearly aimed at any potential jury pool. That is not only scandalous in itslef, but is also clearly illegal. As if that were not enough, the money came from where?…his campaign fund? isn’t that the whole crux of the criminal problem with Delay in the first place?

It is also worthy of note that although Austin is a Liberal town in general, The Austin American Statesman actually endorsed Bush in ‘04!!!

I think conservatives need to do a much a better job questioning their information sources. The real biases out there are nothing short of shocking!

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 16, 2006 5:24 PM
Comment #126055
Can anyone name a much more reliably Conservative op-ed voice than that of George F. Will?

Well, I guess he’s now joined the Liberal Media.

How true. And to let all the conservatives understand newspaper reading habits: The two columnists Liberal me read habitually in the Washington Post are George Will and Charles Krauthammer. I find their “Liberal” op-ed writers generally dull.

Posted by: Steve K at February 16, 2006 5:26 PM
Comment #126056

And for all the people claiming Fox News is biased:

Just recently, Christi Amanpour who is a reporter and NOT and analyst was quoted as saying (discussing the Bob Woodruff ordeal)

” … and the Iraq War obviously being a disaster . .”

Nice objectivity! While things could’ve gone better the 3 week initial war, capturing Saddam and killing his sons, capturing 46 of the 52 deck of cards, starting an initial government, 3 popular and highly participatory elections, and the ever-increasing number of Iraqi security forces make it something less than a disaster in my view. And while 2260 have died, that’s still less than the first 8 hours at Iwo Jima. So, perhaps Christi has a more flattering word in her vocabulary than “disaster” because I think it’s safe to say it’s a higher grade than that!

Also, the liberal media gleefully hopped on the “Domestic Wiretapping” nomenclature … even though it was only overseas/international calls. So, I guess the next time a media rep goes from NYC to Yemen or Saudi Arabia they can tell all their friends they’re going on a “domestic” flight.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 16, 2006 5:30 PM
Comment #126057

The Chicago Tribune has to reach a local audience. If they spouted right wing Rpblcn propaganda, who would read their paper. Fox local news in Chicago is actually very good. I used to watched their morning program all the time. If they stuck to their corporate agenda, their market share in Chicago would be very small unless they were doing attention getting stunts every day. It would not even penetrate into Rummy’s old district.

Have no fear for George Will, he has not abandoned the right wing, but he knows how to spot a loser when he sees it.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 16, 2006 5:37 PM
Comment #126059

Tony
“That interview was presented on a news program - presented like actual news”

It was an interview. Do interviews shown during the news with sheehan saying that Bush killed her son, mean that Bush literally killed him? No.

“I try to stay on the good side as much as possible”

So your back working for FOX again? :)

Adrienne
What they do and dont report on is what I just said to Tony and Ray O.
You feel FOX does that and I feel that the others do it more.
And likewise, what CNN, ABC, CBS or NBC refuse to report on or just outright distort info on, shows this admin in a bad light.
And if we go to the issues, the lefts side is always shown in a favorable light.

Posted by: kctim at February 16, 2006 5:39 PM
Comment #126060

KansasDem,

I think you liked what Mr. Will started out with, but here are his closing two paragraphs. He is a good man and a good conservative.

Immediately after Sept. 11, the president rightly did what he thought the emergency required, and rightly thought that the 1978 law was inadequate to new threats posed by a new kind of enemy using new technologies of communication. Arguably he should have begun surveillance of domestic-to-domestic calls — the kind the Sept. 11 terrorists made.

But 53 months later, Congress should make all necessary actions lawful by authorizing the president to take those actions, with suitable supervision. It should do so with language that does not stigmatize what he has been doing, but that implicitly refutes the doctrine that the authorization is superfluous.


Posted by: Cliff at February 16, 2006 5:42 PM
Comment #126067

Tim:
“what CNN, ABC, CBS or NBC refuse to report on or just outright distort info on, shows this admin in a bad light.”

Tim, there is nothing but bad light to shed on this administration — because they simply suck big time.
Everybody should realize this by now.
If you don’t realize this by now, I really feel bad for you.
And truthfully, if you don’t, it’s rather disappointing because I’ve always considered you a much more critical observer than your average rightwing FOX-clone.

“And if we go to the issues, the lefts side is always shown in a favorable light.”

Um, what on earth are you talking about? There is no left side being shown, because the left has no power whatsoever at present. Indeed, the Dems are practically invisible, yet whenever they are mentioned it’s almost always in a pathetically “obstructionary”, yet woefully ineffective, manner.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 16, 2006 6:13 PM
Comment #126078

This bias stuff is really getting old.

I have to relate another story, this time about the redistricting that Texas went through a couple years ago:

The reason the Texas State Dems went to Oklahoma, was to deprive the Republicans of a quorum so they couldn’t vote in the redisttricting. That much is generally understood. Here’s a few things that aren’t understood about this story that got ‘SPUN’ out of control by conservatives via the supposedly liberally biased media!

1. While Democratic legislatures have engaged in redistrictin in the past, it was always done every ten years, with the idea that while it is an inherently political process, it needed to be done at some interval to reflect shifting populations in this country.

2. This last redistricting was the first time it had been done so recently after the previous one (less than four years).

3. It was done because the Republicans had just acheived a majority in the Texas Legislature.

4. It was done for the purpose of extending republican congrressional power.

5. It was being pushed forwared in spite of court challenges because the new elections would stand, regardless. The Republicans knew this and cynically forged on with the idea that ends justified the means.

6. This was one of Tom Delay’s efforts…so we can say it was funded either directly, or at the very least, indirectly, by illegal means!!!


7. The Republicans in Texas then, illegally, sent out the Texas Rangers to look for the Democrats. This was a misuse of State resources for political purposes…nothing out of the ordinary for these Republicans, clearly.


Have you heard the saying that the greatest trick the Devil ever conceived was to convince the world he didn’t exist? …

Well the greatest trick this group of Republicans ever conceived was to spin the information the way they do while simultaneously convincing as many as they do that the prevailing bias is actually Liberal.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 16, 2006 6:46 PM
Comment #126085

How Can the Media be fair and balanced? When the Washington Press Corp tried to report the truth they were repeatedly refused the President’s Itinerary.

They allowed Jeff Ganon (a male prostitute) full access to the White House Press Room to ask “softball questions”.

Posted by: Pat at February 16, 2006 7:20 PM
Comment #126101

Yep, sure wasn’t any media bias involved in the reporting of Cheney gunning down his friend, was there? They failed to report that the real reason for the delay in reporting it to the media was the fact that Cheney actually killed the guy, and they had to find a double for him in order to cover it up. The extra time in ICU was for some last minute plastic surgery to perfect the Satanic Neocons diabolical plan. Don’t tell the American Communist Lawyers Union, they won’t know who to sue anyway.

Posted by: Duano at February 16, 2006 7:58 PM
Comment #126116

Duano?,

Are for real? American Communist Lawyers Union?

Do you really want to see what this country would look like WITHOUT the ACLU?

I’m beginning to see that the only way sustain a vibrant American Democracy is to let it destroy itself so that after some other empire or tyrannical form of government has been felt for awhile, it can be reborn and such things as The Constituion and American Democracy can be appreciated again!

How did we get this far? …oh yeah, we had a continuous influx of immigration from other parts of the world supplying us with a populace that APPRECITED everything this country was founded on. That’s what we need again. Open the borders or we all parish!

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 16, 2006 8:18 PM
Comment #126121

We got em now he shot someone

GET CHENEY

no it was an accident

HE WAS STINKING DRUNK FALLING DOWN AND SLERRRRRING HIS SPEECH.

no it was an accident

WHY THE HELL DID IT TAKE SO LONG TO TELL US ABOUT IT.

no it was an accident

WE DESERVE TO KNOW DAMN IT

no it was and accident

GOOD HIS FRIEND HAD A HEART ATTACK MAYBE HE WILL DIE WE GOT EM NOW GET CHENEY

no it was an accident

IF HE DIES WE CAN SEND HIM AWAY MUGSHOTS AND ALL

no it was an accident

NO bias indeed!!!

WHAT ABOUT IRAN ,RUSSIA,THE 40 HOURS OF SADDAM TAPES THAT REVEAL HIS STARTEGY FOR GETTING RID OF HIS WMD’S. , FRANCES RESPONCE TO IRAN, IRAQ AND A WHOLE HOST OF MORE USEFUL PIECES OF NEWS.

THAT’S RIGHT DOES FIT THE TEMPLATE!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Chris at February 16, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #126124

Reporters are herd animals. They all run after the same sorts of stories until the herd finds something else. They tend to have a liberal bias because liberal stories are easier to tell. The free market economy is hard to understand and hard to write about. An easier story is to find someone who appears to be a victim. It is especially potent if this person is a downtrodden minority. That is the template that has been used since the 1960s. It is not the truth, but it is easy.

It is not surprising that you find more conservatives. For one things, Republicans are in power. They are making decisions. The other key is that conservatives are the ones with the new ideas. Liberals have been very reactionary for a generation. They are not interesting.

Posted by: Jack at February 16, 2006 8:30 PM
Comment #126125

YEA THAT’S RIGHT 40 HOURS OF TAPES FOUND AFTER WE TOOK BAGHDAD AND MILLIONS OF DOCUMENTS RELATED TO WMD’S AND HOW TO MOVE THEM WHERE TO MOVE THEM, WHEN TO MOVE THEM.

FAR MORE RELAVENT THAN ANY STORY THE MEDIA HAS PUT OUT IN THE LAST TWO MONTHS

WAIT THIS WOULD MAKE THEM LIARS LIARS THAT THEY ARE.

Posted by: cad at February 16, 2006 8:32 PM
Comment #126132

Chris,

Yeah you’re right, it was an accident.

It was the kind of accident that requires gross negligence and an EXTREME DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE!!!

…The very nature of what is the core problem with this administration.

The reason for the continued hoopla isn’t biased witch hunting! The issue that continues with regard to this story is the reactions coming from Cheney, The White House et al.
Initially, The White House actually issued a statement blaming the shooting on the VICTIM! How biased and preposterous is that? Anybody who knows anything about gun and hunting safety knows it is the responsibility of the SHOOTER to be sure his shot is safe BEFORE he/she pulls the trigger!

The bias represented in this story IS the very CONSERVATIVE bias we are all talking about!

As for the other items you mention, Sadaam is CLEARLY a delusional megalomaniac. Even more so now, by far, than ever before! Are you trying to suggest we should take these tapes as hard evidence? …of anything?
We have a prsence there now and WHERE ARE THE WMD’S??? Perhaps you imagine he shipped them to one of his neighbors…which one?
Iran? Turkey? Isreal? Saudi Arabia? Kuwait?
What strange bias are YOU reading, watching or listening to?

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 16, 2006 8:44 PM
Comment #126134

“THE 40 HOURS OF SADDAM TAPES THAT REVEAL HIS STARTEGY FOR GETTING RID OF HIS WMD’S”

“YEA THAT’S RIGHT 40 HOURS OF TAPES FOUND AFTER WE TOOK BAGHDAD AND MILLIONS OF DOCUMENTS RELATED TO WMD’S AND HOW TO MOVE THEM WHERE TO MOVE THEM, WHEN TO MOVE THEM.”

OK - you’ve got to provide links on this… breaking news story? I’ve got to see this one.

Posted by: tony at February 16, 2006 8:55 PM
Comment #126141

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1578725/posts

quote text

Now go search ABC’s sight and see if you can find it.
http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/156129.php

quote text

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200602\NAT20060215c.html

quote text

OK it’s only ten or twelve hours but the point remains. Loftus is no Bush apologist either.

Let’s see what if we get the truth or not.

Posted by: CAD at February 16, 2006 9:19 PM
Comment #126143

just look up john loftus and saddam tapes you’ll get all the results you need including the house subcommittee and the fact that the voice has been verfied as saddam hussien…

Posted by: cad at February 16, 2006 9:21 PM
Comment #126148

Arr … it was an analogy … a-n-a-l-o-g-y. Yeah, I was really trying to say there were exactly 12 news stories everyday. My goodness, even to assume that one has to wonder about your surroundings. Get out, live a little.

2nd thing: Liberals, keep pressing the Cheney hunting accident. It’s good filler especially since you have no answers to any major issues of the day. (Oh, except for over-the-horizon forces in Okinawa, umm, for Iraq … yup! 6000 miles is definitely over the horizon!!!) Pelosi analogizing the hunting accident with Iraq was classic stuff to make swing voters start saying stuff like “Guliani and Allen, huhn? Sounds interesting.”

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 16, 2006 9:31 PM
Comment #126149

Ken Cooper

Libs hate: Talk Radio (minus PBS), Fox News
Cons hate: CNN, CBS, ABC, BBC, Al Jazeera, NY Times, Washington Post, San Fran Chronicle, Atlanta Journal and, to a lesser degree, NBC, MSNBC, and the Chicago Tribune.
All you’ve proven is that conservatives are more hate-filled than liberals.

Posted by: ElliottBay at February 16, 2006 9:31 PM
Comment #126151

Tony

How about this link:

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/111505.wmv

You can delete the last 45 seconds since it’s GWB, but the first 3 minutes are all prominent democrats.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 16, 2006 9:34 PM
Comment #126156

Hey ElliotBay,

I am a PROUD Liberal and I too often take issue with:
CNN, CBS, ABC, BBC, NY Times, Washington Post, San Fran Chronicle, Atlanta Journal, MSNBC, and The Chicago Tribune. These sources often gloss over things that results in conservative bias.

AS for Al Jezeera, I don’t believe there are many Americans, regardless of political leanings, who like the way they have presented things.

I see huge conservative all over the place. I am from Texas and just moved away from there. Even in Austin, the last great BLUE Oasis in a vast RED desert, I see stunning things.

Read my above posts for more details.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 16, 2006 9:48 PM
Comment #126162

Hey Tim Huff,

I am stunned that you don’t believe FOX is all the biased toward the right. How can you possibly defend that? I’d like to hear you try! Pick a story, do it for yourself. Follow the international coverage, the coverage by other American sources and then tell me FOX is anything BUT a Right Wing SOUNDING BOARD!
I DARE YOU TO TRY.

RGF

Posted by: RGF at February 16, 2006 9:59 PM
Comment #126164

I just spent an hour researching that ‘John Loftus Saddam tapes’ deal, and what you get is a bunch of links to places like NewsMax, WorldNetDaily, and Loftus’ own website.

Loftus claims to have “secret internal” tapes that come from Saddam Hussein’s private office. These tapes purportedly detail exactly how and where Hussein hid WMD before the invasion.

Loftus’ website says he is releasing these tapes on Saturday, 18 February - so stay tuned.

And when these ‘secret tapes’ come to nothing, cad, will you retract the claim publicly?

And, Mr. Cooper, your ‘analogy’ was puerile.

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 16, 2006 10:01 PM
Comment #126165

from the SECRET TAPES:

“”Intelligence community analysts from the CIA, and the DIA reviewed the translations and found that, while fascinating, from a historical perspective the tapes do not reveal anything that changes their post-war analysis of Iraq’s weapons programs nor do they change the findings contained in the comprehensive Iraq Survey group report,” she said in a statement.”

Wow - even Saddam agrees that he wasn’t a threat to the US.

Ken -

Good - you found another link, but your original point has still been debunked 1000 times. You’re missing the one single point here. Pre-war intelligence show more against Saddam having weapons than for the idea. Bush chose to select his intel to fit his goal, and the pushed anyone who spoke up out of the way. Call it what you will - but I think there’s a hell of a case for calling it lying.

Posted by: tony at February 16, 2006 10:04 PM
Comment #126177

Tony,

You’re the one missing the point my friend. Saddam only allowed pre-arranged telegraphed inspections.

How would you like your child to say, “Dad, I know you want me to clean my room and you want to see it clean by 6 pm tonight … but when you come inspect my room I hereby declare you can only check 3 areas and you need to have me that list of 3 areas by 5 pm. And you can’t check my sock drawer or my closet, I just can’t let you go there.

The inspections were a joke, hence the reason for the 14 (or was it 15, there were so many!!!) UN resolutions.

So I disagree that the proof was stronger against WMD . . you call those inspections??!! But I do agree it was a toss up, it was unknown … but that was CLEARLY Saddam’s fault and not Bush’s fault that the inspections were nearly meaningless.

But after Gulf War I and the surrender document which was signed there (that was a “we’ll do this or you’ll kick our ass again and we’ll like it” document) as well as the umpteen UN resolutions, THE ONUS ON SADDAM WAS TO UNEQUIVOCALLY PROVE THE LACK OF WMD AND HE CLEARLY DID NOT ALLOW THAT PROOF TO HAPPEN.

Saddam, madman, “Death To America” chants, 9/11 wearing our patience thin with middle east radicals, and no concrete proof of the lack of WMD … he was responsible for his own demise.

Final thought: Please understand WMD. If you have a 2000 sqft home you can house enough WMD to kill 10 million people, if not more. Hell, a nuke in your living room and a bio weapon in your dining room … that’s 5 to 10 million right there. So, have we seen every hole in Iraq? Are Iran and Syria . . do you think they’re Switzerland for God’s sake??!! You really think Syria would say “Oh no! We can’t have those deadly weapons and agents in our pristine country! Please drive them somewhere else!” You really think that’s impossible. Really?!

So, all this, plus the video: http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/111505.wmv

Saying Bush lied about WMD … you marginalize yourself to a factless leftist extremism.

Posted by: Ken Cooper at February 16, 2006 10:54 PM
Comment #126190

I feel I just have to comment on the president’s reaction to Dick Cheney being forced by Karl Rove to go on Fox (Home of the GOP) and talk about how he shot his friend Harry in the face.

Bush: I thought the vice president handled the issue just fine.”

Yeah, avoiding the cops until later really seemed to get him off the hook!

He went through - and I thought his explanation yesterday was a powerful explanation.

He certainly did go through…
Right through the face, neck and chest.
And sure, he gave an explanation, but it wasn’t nearly as powerful as the shot that went through Harry.

This is a man who likes the outdoors and he likes to hunt.

Hate to disabuse you of your hero worship Mr. President, but anyone who thinks it sport to actually shoot at cage-raised quail with clipped wings on a game farm is not a hunter nor an outdoorsman. Instead, they’re a sadistic psychopath with absolutely no sense of right and wrong.

And he heard a bird flush and he turned and pulled the trigger

Violating the most basic rules of gun safety that I learned back in the fourth grade — before my Dad would ever allow me to fire any kind of a gun.

and saw his friend get wounded.

Well, now you’re making it sound like he was a passive observer, Mr. President. Dick didn’t see his friend get wounded — he wounded his friend by shooting him with a shotgun.

And it was a deeply traumatic moment for him, and obviously for the - it was a tragic moment for Harry Whittington.

Yes, very traumatic. No doubt painful, too.
I can just imagine how much more traumatic it must be for you two to think about all our soldiers who have died or been maimed for life because you accidentally took the country into a war. Not to mention all the innocent Iraqi’s who have also accidentally died or been maimed for life.

And so I thought his explanation yesterday was a very strong and powerful explanation, and I’m satisfied with the explanation he gave.

That’s funny, because I’m not satisfied with Dick’s explanation at all.
See, I know he had to have been a lot closer to Harry than thirty yards because the man ended up having pellets penetrate many layers of clothing, including a heavy jacket with thick cushioning, before one of them entered his chest cavity to lodge in, or very near his heart. Now that’s strong and powerful.
Also, with that sort of a shotgun, the pellets will spread out the farther away they get, so for that many pellets to hit such a small area of his body, again, he had to have shot the man at a much closer range.
Aside from those questions, I’d like to know why Dick (or was it the secret service on behalf of Dick?) refused to allow local law enforcement to speak with him the evening of the shooting? Was he actually drunk? Insisting on them waiting until the following morning seems to imply that, yes, Dick may well have been rather inebriated when he wildly shot his friend in the face, neck and chest with a shotgun.

Q: But are you satisfied about the timing?

Bush: I’m satisfied with the explanation he gave.

Well, I guess we’ll all have to be — since he is refusing to have any sort of regular press conference. You know, one where he might have cleared up some of the questions that still linger, and perhaps, always will.

Q: Some Democrats say that this shooting episode has contributed to a perception of White House secrecy. What do you say to that, sir?

Bush: I think people are making the wrong conclusion about a tragic accident.

I think not. And please, it was not simply “an accident” it was nothing short of gross negligence — and perhaps drunkeness.

Also, don’t know if you caught it, but isn’t it strange how that reporters question was worded? I personally know plenty of Republicans who think that this administration is far too secretive.

The vice president was involved in a terrible accident and it profoundly affected him.

Yes. Things like this do affect people profoundly. Maybe Dick will now have a bit more sympathy for say… someone like Cindy Sheehan? I think she too, was profoundly affected by another one of your administrations “accidents”.

Yesterday when he was here in the Oval Office I saw the deep concern he had about a person who he wounded.

I can only hope you two often sit in deep concern in the Oval Office thinking of all the soldiers who are dead, or who will die, or who are wounded, or who will be wounded, in Iraq also.

And he - again, I thought yesterday’s explanation was a very strong and important explanation to make to the American people.

I suppose it was better than no explanation at all — which was what he had given the country all those days before.

And now our concerns are directed toward the recovery of our friend.

Good for you. Besides, if Harry dies, things might get a bit stickier for your VP, no?

I knew Harry Whittington when I was the governor of Texas, down there in Austin. He’s a fine man. He’s been involved in our state’s politics for a long period of time. And, you know, my concern is for Harry, and I know the vice president feels the same way.

All the best Harry Whittington. Get Well Soon.
And do yourself a favor, never forget the experience of being much like one of those startled and frightened caged-raised, clipped-winged birds that are mercilessly shot at on game farms. Culture of Life and all that.
Oh, and you really might want to think twice before “hunting” with Mr. Cheney again.

Okay, I’ve spoken my mind. I’m dropping this subject now.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 16, 2006 11:45 PM
Comment #126191

a sadistic psychopath with absolutely no sense of right and wrong

Adrienne, you are quite a phrasemaker. That one about sums it up for me.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 16, 2006 11:55 PM
Comment #126210

Thanks Ray!

Posted by: Adrienne at February 17, 2006 12:54 AM
Comment #126219

“Hell Yeah! I’m a Liberal thinker concerned with promoting progressive Liberal causes. But I don’t close my eyes when people do wrong in ANY DIRECTION, and I don’t like to be lied to or mislead by ANYONE.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 16, 2006 04:54 PM”

Adrienne,

Very well said.

I watched Richard Dreyfuss speak at a National Press Club luncheon on C-span today. It was a great speech. One thing that really rung a bell was his speaking about “uninformed opinion”. I won’t go into details but it basically amounted to his liberal friends refusing to view conservative films, etc. and vice versa.

I thought it drew a striking parallel to what you’re saying here.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 17, 2006 1:23 AM
Comment #126228

QUESTION TO ANYONE:

Would it be accurate to say that our cable media is just sloppy newswire hodge-podge and is given to us through all the intellectual enlightenment contained in a novelty store bobble-head doll?

I don’t mind if it’s left or right but A: It lies and misrepresents regularly and B: it’s not informational enough with the same soundbites played endlessly through out the day AND YES IT DOES MARCH TO BUSHIES DRUM w/ no major questioning of little Lord Dubya’s inadequacies like this is all normal—he is an idiot clearly and cable news rarely takes notice. Not to mention the online polls always ask the wrong questions or ones geared to get only one particular genre of response and are usually off the mark.

The truth is cable media is tiresome and stupid and network news isn’t all that much better. Our news is reported to us by unintellectual pussies afraid to question this administration outside only the most dullardly conservative of ways as they rub shoulders with these same politico dildos at fundraisers and events.

Look what those ass-holes did to Clinton and his mistakes are approximately one 100th of the mistakes the GOP has made since they entered the house and senate not to mention the executive branch. Look what those stupid republican dick-knots did to our economy!!!!

Posted by: I H8 Bush with vengeance at February 17, 2006 1:44 AM
Comment #126288

Most conservatives on television like to say that THEIR opinions, not liberal opinions, reflect the majority in America. I tend to agree with this. It seems to me that most people in this country, especially those not living in coastal cities, are traditional by nature, i.e. conservative. Human beings are inherently fearful of change the older they get, and change is the very essence of liberalism, is it not? Now, if the media is truly objective, it would reflect a 50/50 split of conservative and liberal opinions and stories. But if most people in this country are conservative—say 60, 70, or even 80%—then that would mean that the media does not represent America, and that 10, 20, or 30% difference is where the perception of a liberal bias derives, even though the media is in fact nonbias. Honestly, I don’t know if the media is liberal or not. It seems to me that liberals like myself believe the media is too conservative (Remember the shock and awe coverage of the war? Where was coverage of the protests?) and conservatives believe the media is too liberal—so probably it’s right where it needs to be. And if the media is in fact liberal, then what’s so wrong with that? Is it not the job of the press to always challenge the way we view this world, and is challenging the worldview not the essence of liberal philosophy?

Posted by: BrentM at February 17, 2006 6:13 AM
Comment #126319

“Saying Bush lied about WMD … you marginalize yourself to a factless leftist extremism.”

If I do so to you, then I can live with that. However, the idea that Bush lied is ingrained more with his presentation of the known facts and his avoidance of owning up to his mistake more than the prevalent assumptions with regard to Iraq before the invasion. And since you’re so hyped on what others beleived prior to invading Iraq - how do you reconcile that both Rice and Powell felt that (May 2001) Iraq posed no real threat to the US or the rest of the world?

It is a bold face lie to say “Not only do we know that they have them (WMDs) but we know where they are.” That’s the point. By continually going back to the “Everybody thought so” argument only points out that 1 - that is not true, 2 - your party can not own up to it’s own decisions.

Posted by: tony at February 17, 2006 8:28 AM
Comment #126336

“Would it be accurate to say that our cable media is just sloppy newswire hodge-podge and is given to us through all the intellectual enlightenment contained in a novelty store bobble-head doll?”

Hell yes. Those of us on the left, center, and right…THIS is something we should be able to agree on.

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 17, 2006 9:21 AM
Comment #126342

Arr-squared-

While I agree with your opinion that both studies were flawed, my comment was mostly about the article I linked with this line:

As the media watchdog group Media Matters pointed out, a researcher cannot analyze one type of source (special interest groups) and make broad conclusions about overall bias.

But that’s exactly what they turned around and did, or at least appeared to have done, the very next month And it is exactly what Vahir did with his article.

Posted by: George in SC at February 17, 2006 9:35 AM
Comment #126343

Adrienne
“Tim, there is nothing but bad light to shed on this administration — because they simply suck big time”

That is how YOU view this administration. To me, this admin is not different than the previous but the news coverage is opposite.

“Um, what on earth are you talking about?”

Yeah, yesterday was very busy. I was pretty choppy in my posts, sorry all. I promise to try and be more clear today.

“There is no left side being shown”

I see the opposite. Big surprise eh. lol.

I believe the media mainly shows the lefts side of the issues though.
From gun control to abortion to gay marriage to the poor, etc.. the lefts view is what dominates the news.
I think this is why the left thinks FOX is a conservative news channel and why the right believes in the liberal media. Each side believes their views are not being presented fairly, so they say there is a bias.

Its all just my opinion and I know it doesnt mean much. But if the left sees a bias with FOX, maybe they have a point that those on the right can’t see and if the right sees a bias with the rest of media, then maybe they have a point that the left can’t see.

Posted by: kctim at February 17, 2006 9:39 AM
Comment #126346

RGF
“I am stunned that you don’t believe FOX is all the biased toward the right. How can you possibly defend that? I’d like to hear you try!”

As I told Adrienne, I believe alot of it has to do with perception. If I’m not disagreeing or asking where’s the other side of the story then maybe I’m not seeing the bias.
I am equally as stunned that you say there is no liberal media.

Posted by: kctim at February 17, 2006 9:46 AM
Comment #126350

I had previously mentioned watching a speech given by Richard Dreyfuss to the National Press Club yesterday. He had some comments regarding the media that I thought might interest some:

**************************************
Impeaching Bush Is ‘Cause Worth Fighting for,’ Actor Says
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
February 17, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Richard Dreyfuss, the actor who starred in movies ranging from “Jaws” to “Mr. Holland’s Opus,” told an audience in Washington, D.C., on Thursday that “there are causes worth fighting for,” and one of those is the impeachment of President George W. Bush.

“There are causes worth fighting for even if you know that you will lose,” Dreyfuss said during a speech at the National Press Club. “Unless you are willing to accept torture as part of a normal American political lexicon, unless you are willing to accept that leaving the Geneva Convention is fine and dandy, if you accept the expansion of wiretapping as business as usual, the only way to express this now is to embrace the difficult and perhaps embarrassing process of impeachment.”

Noting that the process was established by the country’s “founders, who we revere to check executive abuse with congressional balance,” Dreyfuss stated that impeachment “is a statement that we refuse to endorse bad behavior.”

“If we refuse to debate the appropriateness of the process of impeachment, we endorse that behavior, and we approve the enlargement of executive power,” regardless of whoever may occupy the White House in the future, he said.

“And don’t kid yourselves: No one ever gives up power, ever,” Dreyfuss added.

“Now, it is not your job as the press to impeach George Bush,” the actor stated. However, people in the media should “maintain the integrity of that debate” by not dismissing the topic out of hand as partisan or unpatriotic.
During his address on the subject of Hollywood’s view of contemporary news media, Dreyfuss said he is not a cynic or a liberal, but is instead a “‘libo-conservo-middle-of-the-roado,’ and I have been for many years.”

“I’m deeply in love with my country,” he added. “As a matter of fact, I’m deeply in love with the country that I was taught about in school, the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

Nevertheless, Dreyfuss charged that “people can sometimes be pretty thoughtless, pretty terrified and do some pretty impressive damage” when they are wrong or “are the victims of political hypnosis.”

In the past, “time and distance played an amazing part in keeping the human race from killing itself,” the actor noted. The need for revenge after an attack “inevitably weakened because it took a lot of time to get men into ships and move them to the right battlefield. Only those truly staunch of heart and truly zealous could keep up that hatred.

“But now, people in Kansas see the [Twin] Towers fall at the exact instant as people in Nigeria or Cairo,” he said. “Instantaneous knowledge leads to instantaneous reaction, which creates a demand for an instantaneous, reflexive response.”

Dreyfuss blamed part of that reaction on television newscasters, who “fill the air with the same terrible clips, the same blaring intro music, the same screaming fonts, and then the same clips again and the same screaming fonts again and again to fill up these news cycles.”

“Television did this. Television created the sound bite and then shrunk it,” the actor said. “Television replaced words with images so that people make extraordinary decisions based not on prose or any attempt at analysis,” but on pictures instead.

The actor saved his harshest tone for those who accuse critics of the government and its officials of having a more serious motive.

“Watch me lose my sense of humor if people accuse me of treason,” Dreyfuss said before mocking two of the Fox News Channel’s most popular hosts. “‘That’s not very O’Reilly of you, Mister Smarty-Pants,’ or ‘What would Sean Hannity have to say about that, Mister Too-Complex-for-Your-Own-Good?’”

However, “none of this happened because of any conspiracy,” he stated. “This happened because we have not paid attention to the new rules of the electronic media.”

To restore true American values, the actor called for children to be taught “the tools of debate and dissent,” as well as a return to the principle of civility, which he called “the oxygen that democracies require else they become poisoned and die, as this democracy will.”
**************************************

Of course he had much more to say. If C-span replays this IMO it’s worth watching. What really stuck in my mind was his reference to “uninformed opinion”.

KansasDem


Posted by: KansasDem at February 17, 2006 9:57 AM
Comment #126355

While searching for info about this:

Intelligence Summit to Air ‘Saddam’s WMD Tapes’
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200602\NAT20060215a.html

I found this:

Saddam Sent WMD to Syria, Former General Alleges
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200602\SPE20060202a.html

Interesting to say the least.
KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 17, 2006 10:16 AM
Comment #126363

Now, being the “turd in the Bush & Co. punch bowl” that I always try to be, if the Bush administration knows that Saddam shipped his WMD’s to Syria how could he approve of this:

White House Defends Port Sale to Arab Co.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/port_security

I can’t help but wonder what diplomatic ties, if any, exist between the United Arab Emirates and Syria. Maybe the Bush rationale is that once the WMD’s are in our own ports they’ll be easier to find. It’s always easier to locate the “smoking gun” if you’re sitting right next to the damn thing when it’s fired.

I know, I know. I just need to place my trust in our unquestionably competent and diligent leaders.

KansaDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 17, 2006 10:42 AM
Comment #126372

Hey George in SC,

I just meant to point out some of the flaws in both studies. I enjoyed your article very much, and didn’t mean to impugn it in any way. Both of those studies (the G&M one moreso) intersect the work I do, and couldn’t resist chiming in about them, not your piece.

Posted by: Arr-squared at February 17, 2006 11:21 AM
Comment #126473

it is very easy to read your words and see that you were not born in the U.S.A and your train of thought does not represent my self and my familys best concerns. As I read your Democratic Party talking points defeatest far left liberal propaganda it only gives farther rise to your partys demise.

Posted by: angry white man at February 17, 2006 2:26 PM
Comment #126501

angry white man -

Can you post something worth repsonding to? Seriously… if you want to just sling insults, I guess that’s OK, if it’s something that rocks your world.

Posted by: tony at February 17, 2006 2:56 PM
Comment #126507

you insult yourself as most on the left do tony, its not about you its about vihar.

Posted by: angry white man at February 17, 2006 3:08 PM
Comment #126520

Guests and hosts do not make a network liberal. It is the topics and the manner in which way they are “reported” on that do so.
What a network will NOT cover, also says alot about how liberal it is.
(Thank you Tim)**** that says every thing that need be said about the news media dream world the left has been liveing under for so many years they have eyes but refuse to see they have ears but will not listen for it is there doom not to remember.

Posted by: angry white man at February 17, 2006 3:24 PM
Comment #126534

>>What a network will NOT cover, also says alot about how liberal it is. That says every thing that need be said about the news media dream world the left has been living under for so many years they have eyes but refuse to see they have ears but will not listen for it is there doom not to remember.

Posted by: angry white man at February 17, 2006 03:24 PM

angry,

Speaking of blind eyes and plugged ears…when was the last time you read or heard a real report on the results of all those investigations into the Clinton White House?

Try this…

After spending 11 years and $21 million of your money, and six years after Clinton left office, the last Republican prosecutor closed his investigation of erstwhile H U D secretary Henry Cisneros. What did you get for your money? Years ago, Cisneros pleaded guilty to misdemeanor lying to the FBI about the amount of money he had given a former mistress and paid a $10,000 fine. Great return on your investment, right?
Many Repubs blame Clinton for nominating Cisneros in the first place, even though he was the first Hispanic to administer a major American city, that he had governed effectively and to widespread acclaim, that he held four university degrees including a doctorate in public administration. The problem? Cisneros had had a mistress. An independent counsel was appointed to investigate him, as part of the Republicans’ blitzkrieg against the Clinton administration, the Democratic Party and anyone anywhere who opposed, or even criticized, their schemes to seize absolute power.
There were eight other independent counsel investigations of other members of Clinton’s administration; not to mention the ninth and most notorious investigation of Whitewater by Kenneth Starr. Everywhere I read that these investigations cost taxpayers from $8 to $12 million each, and Starr ended up spending almost $100 million for a total of what? Nearly $200,000,000.00. That’s a lot of ZEROS!
What was the result of all those investigations and that obscenely gigantic expenditure? Not a single member of the Clinton administration was convicted of a crime committed while serving in office. There was no Whitewater scandal. There was no bribery scandal. There was no Fostergate scandal. There was no Filegate scandal. There was no Travelgate scandal. Each was a desperate Republican exaggeration intended to vilify Clinton.
Oh yes. Clinton was acquitted in his impeachment trial for lying about having sex with a predatory female intern who came to Washington by her own admission to have sex with the president (Yes, boys and girls, there are predatory females.). During that fiasco Republicans dropped like flies from hypocrisy poisoning as their own adulteries and dalliances were revealed. My favorite was Henry Hyde who claimed his was a youthful indiscretion. He had been 40 years old at the time!
Cisneros’ paramour? The FBI found out she had cooked much of the evidence, along with other transgressions, and she was sent to prison for 42 months.

And just to keep the record straight; During the Reagan administration there were 29 criminal convictions of officials for crimes directly related to their positions in office. Zero during the Clinton years. We are about to start counting Dubbya’s.

If we really had a liberal media, we’d be reading these things every day…

Posted by: Marysdude at February 17, 2006 3:42 PM
Comment #126535

“you insult yourself as most on the left do tony, its not about you its about vihar.”

Ahhh… grasshopper. Man, dang that stung. Ouch.

Again, anything worth discussing?

Posted by: tony at February 17, 2006 3:46 PM
Comment #126564

Tim, I have the terrible feeling I’ve been giving you far too much credit as an independent thinker. I hope you realize that you now have someone like “angry white man” rooting your comments on. I happen to think that should be giving you pause.

Kansas Dem, sounds like it was a very good speech Dreyfus gave. I’ve been doing a search looking for the full transcript of it, but it hasn’t yet appeared anywhere on the ‘net — that I’ve been able to find, anyway.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 17, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #126576

Adrienne
“I have the terrible feeling I’ve been giving you far too much credit as an independent thinker.”

Thats too bad ma’am. IMO, I am one of the very few on here who does NOT follow the party line of either side or parrot their talking points.

“I hope you realize that you now have someone like “angry white man” rooting your comments on. I happen to think that should be giving you pause”

Why?
He has only stated here that he too believes in a liberal media, nothing wild about that.

Posted by: kctim at February 17, 2006 5:03 PM
Comment #126617

as part of the Republicans’ blitzkrieg against the Clinton administration, the Democratic Party has been campaining for Queen Hillary to save the world after bill blowed it all to hell in the oral office. As is Typical of the liberal left the hypocrisy is ashear delite to be hold. The left sees riots, murder, intimidation of government officials, 9/11, embassy bombings, threats of genocide, and says that it’s really nothing to worry about. It’s not our problem- it will go away.Jimmy Carter may or may not have been the worst president of the 20th century - history will have the final word on that - but his disgraceful performance at Coretta Scott King’s funeral marks him as the most shameless. Bush listening to phone calls to and from international terrorists is a paramount evil which must be stamped out by any means necessary is there newest cry.
In what could only be taken as a direct attack on Bush’s electronic surveillance of suorists - a program Carter has repeatedly denounced as “illegal” - the ex-prez said of Mrs. King and her slain husband, Martin Luther King, “they became the targets of secret government wiretapping and other surveillance.
True enough - though Carter couldn’t quite bring himself to note that the wire-tapping was conducted under Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, and was originally ordered by Attorney General Robert Kennedy, all Democrats.
Had Carter made better use of electronic surveillance back in day, 52 Americans might have been spared 444 days of Iranian captivity. (Indeed, the world might well have been spared the Iranian revolution - and the current nuclear crisis - had Carter been A real man.
The left will try to have us belive that Muslims are a “Religion of Peace” In order to express their displeasure with the idea that Muslims are violent, thousands of Muslims around the world engaged in rioting, arson, mob savagery, flag-burning, murder and mayhem, among other peaceful acts of nonviolence because of cartoons. With typical Religion of Peace slogans, such as: “Behead Those Who Insult Islam,” “Europe, you will pay, extermination is on the way” and “Butcher those who mock Islam.” They warn Europe of their own impending 9/11 with signs that say: “Europe: Your 9/11 will come” — which is ironic, because it was the left that almost had me convinced the Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks.
The left would for the love and sake of art, does not have any problem urinating on the Bible but they would not dare do the same to the Quran.”
But apparently the Quran is like the Constitution: It’s a “living document,” capable of sprouting all-new provisions at will to destory the world after all its Bushs war and Alia is on there side.
With the Democratic Party supplying defeatest far left propaganda on a daily bases, it will only
serve to throw gasloine on the middle east. And will give rise to the democrats demise.I am reminded of the XL Super Bowl Game add with the caveman and the elephants foot only in this case a cave- woman in the next presidential election.

Posted by: angry white man at February 17, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #126661

Tim,
What can I say? I just call it as I see it.

angry white man,
Blah, blah, blah, yourself.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 17, 2006 8:27 PM
Comment #126740

The problem about writing about the Lib media is you cant escape the redundancy.There trouble lives in 3 different places at the same time. Accountability responsibility attitude. Because of the first amendment,goverment regulation of the media is impossible as it damm well should be.The lib media are arrogant, condescending,elite, a out-of-touch political structure which has ignored the people there concerns and interests.WE poor people now see the Lib media not as a watch dog against goverment abuses of power but as a institution in its self engaging in the abuse of power.The arrogance and condescension-two prime characteristics of the Lib media-are undeniable, hypocritical journalists with there panties in a pinch.The right side of america are now being championed with involvement of outher branches of the American media .AS much as the Hollywood left,elements of the lib media have moved to champion extream leftist causes. The cynical journalist of the past has been replaced with cheerleaders for the failed extream left-wing causes.Many journalists have gone beyound the idealism of “good intentions”.More over many are Utopians,trying to alter the world to fite an impossible vision. Outhers are part of a liberal brat pack that thinks alike and reports the news with the same spin over and over again that if it stinks with the strong stinch of spin maybe it will stick in hopes of a small foot-hold on there vast slippery-slope.

Posted by: angry white man at February 17, 2006 11:50 PM
Comment #126799

angry white man,

Might I suggest a visit to the doc? Maybe a med change? I’m serious, your words sound as angry as your “moniker”. Your posts certainly display that you’re a Republican. The Republicans have control of the “oral” office, both branches of Congress, and now the Supreme Court.

Would you truly prefer to just shoot every Democrat you see? How much power do you desire?

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 18, 2006 2:28 AM
Comment #126826

KansasDem:

Please don’t assume that Angrywhiteman is a Republican. I think that even hard right Republicans would be too tame for this gentleman.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 18, 2006 3:45 AM
Comment #126829

“Kansas Dem, sounds like it was a very good speech Dreyfus gave. I’ve been doing a search looking for the full transcript of it, but it hasn’t yet appeared anywhere on the ‘net — that I’ve been able to find, anyway.

Posted by: Adrienne at February 17, 2006 04:46 PM”
**************************************
If you have either Cable or DSL it’s now available here:
http://www.c-span.org/search/basic.asp?ResultStart=1&ResultCount=10&BasicQueryText=Richard+Dreyfuss&image1.x=29&image1.y=11

It’s the first of the two links. Sorry, that’s the closest I can nail it down. Also FYI most player formats are available at the same site in the lower left hand corner if you need to download a player.

Also, to the managing editors: sorry for the long links, but most of my posts are a compilation of Dragon Naturally Speaking and cut & paste with a few corrections. I’ve not yet found suitable HTML editing software for a “shake-n-bake” guy like me.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 18, 2006 3:52 AM
Comment #126833

GKN,

I hear you. I honestly wasn’t being a smart a** or anything. I’m truly concerned for the guy. Hell, I really do see a shrink at least every three months.

I’ll bet you can remember a time I had trouble keeping my anger in check, and, once again, I apologize. My words were not only nasty but ineffective. I only managed to make a fool of myself.

I’m just glad I wasn’t kicked off the board at that time.

KansasDem

Posted by: KansasDem at February 18, 2006 4:04 AM
Comment #126944

—-
Anger is depression turned outward towards other people.

Posted by: ray ohrealy at February 18, 2006 10:24 AM
Comment #126947

Please don’t assume that Angrywhiteman is a Republican. I think that even hard right Republicans would be too tame for this gentleman. ****** Free speach will always destory first those who fear it most.If I have seen it once I have seen it a thousand times in this watch blog decent is a goodthing.What the left refuse to understand is that there are millions of men and women like myself who work every day to remove the icons of the Demi-commie left-wing liberal socialist cancer being injected into the american political machine and the laws of this land, thank you for your time.

Posted by: angry white man at February 18, 2006 10:29 AM
Comment #126964

>>there are millions of men and women like myself who work every day to remove the icons of the Demi-commie left-wing liberal socialist cancer being injected into the american political machine and the laws of this land, thank you for your time.

Posted by: angry white man at February 18, 2006 10:29 AM

Angry,

How in the hell can liberals inject anything into the American political machine when the rubugnants own the political machine and the press, and the oil, and the war…and…and…and…

Posted by: Marysdude at February 18, 2006 11:12 AM
Comment #127046

Kansas Dem:

Say no more. Anger management is a growing issue in these troubled times. Even the beneficent king has been known to speak rashly. Apologies for any cheap shots previously fired in your direction.

Posted by: goodkingned at February 18, 2006 2:34 PM
Comment #128685

Tim Huff, Steven K, Do you guys know each other? Must be nice to have time to blog. What do you think about the media coverage in Switzerland! LOL

Posted by: dinotori at February 22, 2006 7:30 PM
Post a comment